Law  Lib. 

KF 

5615 


^' 


COMPILATION 


I 


OF  THE 


IRRIGATION  DISTRICT  LAWS  OF  THE 
SEVENTEEN  WESTERN  STATES 


OF  THE 


UNITED  STATES 


JANUARY  1,  1920 


WATER  RESOURCES 

CEN  ;lr  archives 

LOS  ANGELES  COLLECTION 

WAR       1978 


B 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
LOS  ANGELES 


66th  CONGRESS  \  HOUSE  COMMITTEE  /  COMMITTEE 

2d  SESSION       j    ON  IRRIGATION  OF  ARID  LANDS    \        PRINT 


By 
WILL  R.  KING 

Chief  Counsel,  U.  S.  Reclamation  Service,  and  formerly  Associate  Justice 
of  the  Oregon  Supreme  Court 

and 
E.  W.  BURR 

District  Counsel,  U.  S.  Reclamation  Service,  in  charge  of 
Relations  with  Irrigation  Districts 


December  20,  1918 

WITH  ADDENDA  OUTLINING  CHANGES  MADE 
IN  THE  X919  SESSION  LAWS 


Printed  for  use  of  the  House  Committee  on 
Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING   OFFICE 

1920 


Rf 


r  ,'•  r 


HANDBOOK  OF  THE  IRRIGATION 
DISTRICT  LAWS  OF  THE  SEVENTEEN 

WESTERN  STATES  OF  THE  hfv 

UNITED  STATES 


COMMITTEE   ON   IRRIGATION   OF   ARID   LANDS. 

House  of  Representatives. 

sixty-sixth  congress. 

MOSES  p.  KINKAID,  Nebraska,  Chairman. 
NICHOLAS  J.  SINNOTT,  Oregon.  CHARLES  J.  THOMPSON,  Ohio. 

EDWARD  C.  LITTLE,  Kansas.  EDWARD  T.  TAYLOR,  Colorado. 

ADDISON  T.  SMITH,  Idaho.  CARL  HAYDEN,  Arizona. 

JOHN  M.  BAER,  North  Dakota.  MILTON  H.  WELLING,  Utah. 

BENIGNO  C.  HERNANDEZ,  New  Mexico.         CHARLES  R.  EVANS,  Nevada. 
JOHN  W.  SUMMERS,  Washington.  CLAUDE  HUDSPETH,  Texas. 

HENRY  E.  BARBOUR,  California. 

Dan  F.  Reynolds,  Clerk. 
2 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

The  public  corporation  as  related  to  irrigation 7 

Irrigation  farmer  not  an  individualist 7 

Irrigation  as  the  fundamental  institution 7 

Growth  of  the  public  corporation  idea 8 

Advantages  of  district  organization 8 

District  organization  not  a  panacea 9 

Experience  of  the  Federal  Government 10 

Projects  not  Federal 10 

Origin  and  nature  of  irrigation  districts 10 

Historical 11 

Corporate  nature  of  an  irrigation  district-' 11 

Irrigation  districts  are  public  corporations 11 

Formation  of  irrigation  districts 12 

Petition 12 

Hearing  on  organization 13 

Organization  election 13 

Legal  character  and  effect  of  proceedings 13 

Inclusion  of  cities  and  towns  within  irrigation  districts 15 

Railroad  pi'operty , 16 

Federal  and  State  laws 16 

Concurrence  by  State  engineer  in  formation  of  districts 16 

-     Conclusiveness  of  organization 17 

Elections  and  qualifications  for  voting 18 

Qualifications    of   voters IS 

District  officers 20 

The  board  of  directors  and  its  functions 20 

Other  district  officers 21 

Cboperation  with  the  United  States 21 

Provision  in  State  laws 21 

Federal  lands  in  irrigation  districts 23 

Congressional  act  in  favor  of  districts 24 

Additional  congressional  action  desirable 25 

Statutory  bar  to  farm  loans  should  be  removed 25 

Drainage  by  irrigation  districts 26 

Drainage  an  irrigation  necessity 26 

The  supply  and  drainage  systems  equally  irrigation  works 26 

Experiences  of  the  Federal  service  in  drainage 27 

Recognition  by  Congress 27 

Drainage  district  statutes 27 

Irrigation  district  should  be  used  for  drainage 28 

Doctrine  of  Idaho  courts 28 

May  high  lands  be  assessed  for  drainage  of  low  lands? 30 

Idaho  charging  high  lands 30 

Situation  in  other  States 32 

Security  against  future  seepage  losses 32 

Indebtedness  of  irrigation  districts 33 

Bonded  debts 34 

Purposes  for  which  bonds  may  be  issued 34 

Discussion  of  unlawful  purposes 35 

Form  of  bonds 37 

Terms  of  bonds 37 

Negotiability 3S 

Security  behind  the  bonds 39 

Immunity  from  taxation  in  California 40. 

3 


4  ■  CONTENTS. 

Indebtedness  of  irrigation  districts — Continued. 

Bonded  debts — Continued.  Page. 

Various  doctrines  protecting  bondholders 40 

Confirmation  of  bonds 42 

Registration  and -certification  of  bonds 42 

Same — Certification  of  project  feasibility 43 

Sale  of  bonds 44 

Retirement  of  bonds  before  maturity 44 

Refunding    bonds " 44 

Effect  of  changes  in  district  upon  bonds 45 

Indebtedness  not  bonded 45 

Warrants 46 

Confirmation  proceedings 47 

Object 47 

Scope  of  confirmation 47 

Statutory   procedure 48 

.lurisdiction  of  court 48 

Appellate   proceedings 49 

Validity  of  confirmation  proceedings 49 

Federal  Supreme  Court  doubtful  of  decree 49 

State  courts  all  uphold  adjudication 50 

Effect  of  fraud  upon  confirmation  proceedings 51 

Binding  character  of  decree — Effect  upon  State 51 

Revenue 52 

General 52 

Provisions  for  i-evenue  fundamental 52 

.loint  responsibility  of  district  and  creditors  would  be  fatal 52 

A  tendency  to  be  avoided 52 

Importance  as  regards  drainage 53 

Where  the  etpiities  are  to  be  found  in  case  of  loss 53 

Advantages  to  the  district  of  unified  financial  responsibility 53 

A  word  on  cooperation 53 

Two  instruments  for  revenue  collection 54 

Assessment  and  levy 54 

The  agencies  for  collection 54 

Basis  and  measure  of  assessment 54 

Assessment  laws  valid — Ad  valorem  method 55 

Assessment  of  personal  property  upheld  in  Texas 56 

Flat  rate  and  benefit  assessment  held  valid 56 

Relaxation  from  liability  of  district  as  a  whole 57 

Same — Defect  in  Montana  act 57 

Same — Arizona  provision  for  discharge  of  obligation 58 

Same — Release  from  debt  for  refunding  bonds — Coloi'ado 58 

Same — Dakota   provisions 58 

Duty  to  reassess  lands  upheld  on  appeal . 58 

Apportionment  of  assessment  annually  or  once  for  all 59 

Idaho  plan  discussed 59 

What  lands   assessable 60 

Assessment  of  State  lands 60 

Same — Leasehold  interests 60 

Same — Payment  of  assessments  by  the  State 60 

Same — Payment  of  assessments  by  purchaser  or  lessee 61 

When  validity  of  assessment  of  lands  may  be  raised 61 

Discretion  of  the  board  in  assessing 62 

Mandamus  for  failure  to  assess 62 

Defective  assessment 62 

Nature  of  irrigation  district  lien 63 

Relation  of  irrigation  district  liens  to  titles 63 

Situation  under  Federal  farm  loan  act 64 

Reclamation  Service  liens i. 64 

Legal  bar  removed  in  case  of  irrigation  district 64 

Further  revenue  procetlure 65 

Special  assessments 65 

Tolls  and  charges 65 

Constitutionality  of  the  irrigation  district  law 66 


CONTENTS.                                                ■*  '.4^  O 

Page. 

Irrigntion  districts  in  operation 68 

Water    i-ij;ht 68 

Vested  rif,dits 68 

Districts  can  not  adjudicate  water  rights 69 

Nonjudicial  classification  of  rights 69 

Disti'ibution  of  water 69 

California  rule  in  distribution 70 

"  Benelicial   use  "   rule  preferable 70 

Rotation   in  service 70 

Denial  of  service  for  nonpayment 71 

District   responsibility — Theory 71 

Liability   for  oflicial  negligence ^ 71 

Official  lial)i!ity 71 

The  privilege  of  transfer 72 

Transfer  of  water  in  case  of  subirrigation 72 

Power  development 72 

Relations  with  cities 7.3 

Financial  policy 74 

p]minent  domain .• _ 74 

Special   privileges 74 

Operation  by  the  United  States 74 

Carey  Act  projects 75 

Mass    meetings — A    suggestion 7.5 

Subdistricts  for  local  improvements  within  the  main  district 75 

Necessity  of  provisions  for  local  improvements 75 

Statutory  provisions  necessary 7.5 

The  Nevada  provision 76 

The  Washington  provision 76 

A  comparison 77 

Changes  in  boundaries 77 

In  general 77 

Annexation 78 

Same — Hearing 78 

Same — Election  may  be  held 78 

Same — Protest 78 

Same — payments  upon  admission 7.S 

Exclusion 79 

Exclusion  desired  on  account  of  seepage 80 

Proceedings  for  exclusion 80 

Order  by  the  board 81 

Election  when  necessary 81 

Interdistrict  cooperation   and   merger 81 

Overhead  or  reservoir  districts ^ 81 

Cooperative  construction 82 

Districts  for  interstate  projects 82 

Same — Methods  that  of  cooperation  rather  than  corporate  unity 82 

Same — The  California   statute 82 

Joint  action  in  securing  irrigation  works §3 

Merger  or  consolidation §3 

Dissolution . 84 

Express  provisions  necessary <5^ 

Practically  all  States  permit  dissolution g4 

Creditors  to  be  protected g5 

Two  general  methods  of  procedure g5 

General  outline  of  the  statutes gg 

Adjustment  of  indebtedness <n^ 

The  Colorado  plan g^ 

Scope  of  ensuing  outline  of  individual  State  statutes 87 

Arizona ^- 

California IIIZ  90 

Colorado iii-iiiii:::::::::::::::::::  loi 

Idaho ^(,- 

Kansas ,, , 

Montana 2  iif 

Nebraska ZZIZII"  ioq 


b  CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Nevada 127 

New  Mexico 130 

North  Dakota 135 

Oklahoma 138 

Oregon  142 

South  Dakota 144 

Texas  145 

Utah  151 

Washington    155 

Wyoming 160 

Summary  of  important  clianges  made  by  various  session  laws  of  1919 165 

Oregon  constitutional  provision — Cooperation  with  districts 174 

Table  of  cases 175 

Index 181 


HAiNDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION  DISTRICT  LAWS  OF  THE 
SEVEiNTEEN  WESTERN  STATES. 


The  Public  Corporation  as  Related  to  Irrigation. 

Irrigation  is  as  clearly  the  basic  economic  institution  as  the  family 
is  the  basic  social  institution  in  large  sections  of  the  IT  Western 
States,  which  comprise  about  half  the  area  of  the  United  States. 
Without  irrigation  over  extensive  areas  there  would  be  but  a  sparse 
population  dependent  upon  stock  grazing,  while  in  other  sections  of 
the  same  States  irrigation  shares  in  importance  with  the  mining, 
lumber,  and  so-called  dry  farming  industries  and  is  in  general 
a  more  important  and  obviously  a  more  permanent  industry  than 
the  others. 

Irrigation  farmev  not  an  individualist. — It  is  recognized  in  the 
humid  parts  of  the  country  that  farmers  are  the  most  individualistic 
portion  of  the  American  people.  Their  daily  occupation  provides 
fewer  points  of  outside  contact  than  that  of  any  other  part  of  the 
population.  Accordingly,  the  farmer  in  humid  climates  has  com- 
paratively little  occasion  to  develop  the  power  to  cooperate.  This 
is  not  true,  however,  of  the  irrigation  farmer.  He  must  join  forces 
with  other  prospective  farmers  in  order  to  build  the  necessary  canals, 
laterals,  diversion  dams,  and  other  works,  often  including  a  reser- 
voir, which  are  necessary  before  he  can  even  begin  irrigation;  and 
thereafter  he  and  his  neighbors  must  cooperate  in  the  perpetual 
maintenance  and  operation  of  the  works. 

The  proper  discharge  of  these  duties  assumes  an  importance  to 
irrigation  farmers  more  intimately  and  obviously  related  under  all 
ordinary  circumstances  to  their  personal  welfare  than  the  activities 
of  local,  State,  and  Federal  Governments  combined.  The  failure 
of  the  irrigation  system  to  function  properly  for  even  a  brief  period 
means  the  loss  of  all  the  capital  and  labor  invested  in  the  crop. 

Irrigation  as  the  fundamental  institution. — Irrigation,  therefore, 
is  not  only  of  public  use  and  benefit  and  comparable  in  that  respect 
with  education,  highways,  and  local  government,  but  it  is  the  funda- 
mental institution  in  these  communities,  upon  the  cessation  of  which 
the  population  would  so  dwindle  as  to  curtail  and,  in  many  localities, 
abolish  other  public  institutions. 

Hence  it  is  peculiarly  appropriate  that  irrigation  should  be  carried 
on  by  means  of  public  corporations  exercising  the  powers  of  taxation 
and  enjoying  freedom  from  the  necessity  for  securing  the  universal 
consent  of  those  benefited  by  exercising  compulsion  of  the  minority, 
the  power  of  eminent  domain,  public  ownership,  and  popular  con- 
trol. These  powers  for  centuries  have  been  fundamental  in  Anglo- 
Saxon  institutions  performing  many  functions  of  less  public  neces- 
sity than  that  of  irrigation  in  arid  regions. 

No  one  would  think  of  saying  to  one  who  denied  the  benefits  of 
education,  "  We  will  build  the  school  and  keep  it  running,  and  when 
you  want  to  send  children  there  you  can  begin  paying."    But  it  is 

7 


8  -  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

as  illogical  and  pernicious  to  say  to  one  denying  the  benefit  of 
irrigation,  "We  will  build  the  reservoir  and  run  the  ditches  past 
your  lands  at  our  expense,  and  when  you  get  ready  to  cultivate  or 
when  you  can  profitably  sell,  you  or  your  successor  can  make  a  con- 
tract for  water."  But  the  private  corporation  or  mutual  association 
in  effect  lays  just  such  a  proposition  before  the  landowners. 

It  would  be  fully  as  appropriate  to  secure  individual  contracts 
giving  mortgage  liens  on  private  property  for  county  highways  or 
the  sheriff's  salary  as  it  is  to  do  so  for  irrigation  canals  and  the 
water  superintendent's  salary. 

The  above  conclusion  needs  to  be  stated  despite  its  obvious  truth, 
for  the  reason  that  the  tillage  of  lands  requiring  irrigation  is  com- 
paratively a  recent  experience  to  people  inheriting  the  common  law 
of  England.  The  difficulty  with  which  our  race  has  been  confronted 
in  adjusting  conditions  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  insufficient  rainfall 
is  clearly  shown  in  the  survival  in  several  irrigation  States  of  the 
doctrine  of  riparian  rights,  wholly  unsuited  to  western  conditions,  as 
well  as  in  slowness  of  the  use  of  public  or  quasi-municipal  corpora- 
tions, for  the  construction  and  operation  of  irrigation  works. 

Growth  of  the  public  corporation  idea. — The  growing  necessity^ f or 
the  largest  cooperation  in  the  construction  and  operation  of  irriga- 
tion works  has  constantly  forced  upon  farmers  and  legislators  a 
fuller  realization  of  the  public  character  of  irrigation. 

In  the  early  days,  when  land  in  plenty  could  be  secured  from  the 
Government  for  $2.50  an  acre  and  the  streams  still  carried  a  supply 
of  water  ample  for  the  few  persons  diverting  it  by  simple  means, 
there  was  little  necessity  for  financial  credit  or  a  high  degree  of  co- 
operation. Now,  however,  the  summer  flow  of  all  the  small  streams 
and  of  such  rivers  as  do  not  run  in  channels  far  below  the  level  of 
the  lands  they  travel,  has  been  fully  appropriated  throughout  the 
West,  and  the  large  feasible  additional  development  requires  the  ex- 
penditure of  great  sums  of  money  and  the  cooperation  of  capitalists 
with  the  owners  of  large  areas  of  land. 

The  day  of  individual  and  partnership  enterprise  has  long  since 
passed  and  that  of  the  private  corporation  and  the  mutual  ditch  com- 
pany has  now  also  gone  so  far  as  new  projects  are  concerned.  The 
public  corporation  is  being  recognized  as  practically  the  sole  means 
for  the  construction  of  new  irrigation  ]Drojects.  And,  due  to  the 
large  sums  of  money  and  length  of  time  required  for  development,^ 
public  corporations  will  in  the  main  need  the  cooperation  of  the 
National  or  State  Government  or  both. 

The  irrigation  district  is  the  result  of  the  legislative  application 
of  the  public  municipal  idea  to  the  needs  of  irrigation.  Properly 
worked  out  it  removes  numerous  difficulties  which  cling  to  other 
forms  of  organization. 

Advantages  of  district  organization. — It  is  not  within  the  scope  of 
this  discussion  to  argiie  the  advantages  of  irrigation  district  organi- 
zation, but  a  brief  summary  of  sucli  advantages  follows : 

1.  The  organization,  financing,  and  operation  of  irrigation  districts 
are  fully  under  popular  control. 

2.  This  increases  the  sense  of  local  civic  responsibility. 

3.  Projects  are  much  more  rapidly  organized  by  the  holding  of  an 
election  after  a  petition  for  organization  than  is  possible  where  indi- 
vidual contracts  from  the  landowners  must  be  secured. 


THE   PUBLIC   CORPORATION   AS   RELATED  TO   IRRIGATION.  » 

4.  Examination  of  abstracts  of  title  is  of  no  importance  under  the 
district  plan. 

5.  Complete  control  over  the  lands  of  the  (lissentinf^  minority  is 
secured  so  that  all  of  the  lands  benelited  are  bound. 

6.  No  ]:)rotit  other  than  interest  on  the  bonds  is  paid  to  the  creditors 
or  for  promotion. 

7.  The  method  of  ])ublic  assessment  is  applied  to  all  lands  benefited, 
affording  priority  over  pri\ate  mortoajio  liens,  and  the  same  ma- 
chinery for  collection  as  in  the  case  of  taxes. 

A  The  collection  of  the  needed  funds  by  pul)lic  assessment  results 
in  a  better  attitude  on  the  part  of  tlie  averaire  landowner  toward  the 
payn)ent  of  the  moneys  I'equired  for  irrigation. 

9.  Control  is  secured  over  public  lands  of  the  United  States  when 
entered  and  against  unentered  lands  aAvaiting  entry  assessments  ac- 
cumulate. 

10.  The  status  of  a  public,  or  quasi-municipal  corporation  gives  the 
irrigation  district  a  much  better  standing  in  financial  markets. 

11.  The  State  district  laws  supply  the  best  means  for  coo])eration 
with  the  United  States  under  Federal  reclamation  laws. 

'  12.  Several  States  provide  for  exemption  of  taxation  of  irrigation 
district  j^roperty,  and  others  for  the  registration  of  bonds,  so  that 
they  become  lawful  securities  for  the  investment  of  State  school  funds 
and  for  private  fiduciary  moneys. 

13.  The  laws  of  all  the  States  having  irrigation  district  laws  pro- 
vide for  confirmation  proceedings,  jurisdicton  over  all  persons  being 
secured  by  pul)lication,  wherebyi  the  decree  becomes  conclusive  uj^on 
all  the  world  as  to  the  organization  of  the  district  and  the  validity 
of  the  debts  incurred. 

14.  The  speculative  feature  is  eliminated,  landowners  speculatively 
inclined  being  taxed  for  the  cost  and  operation  of  the  works,  are 
unable  profitably'  to  "  hold  on." 

15.  The  land  is  accordingly  put  into  cultivation  without  imneces- 
sary  delay  in  order  to  make  it  possible  to  meet  the  assessments. 

1().  The  project  in  this  manner  is  more  rapidly  developed  and 
achieves  more  ]:)romi)t  success. 

DistHct  organiznt'ion  not  a  panacea.- — In  spite  of  these  advantages  it 
must  not  be  imagined  that  the  irrigation  district  is  a  panacea  cure  for 
irrigation  troubles.  Far  from  it.  The  present-day  project  is  generally 
a  large  undertaking.  It  demands  great  engineering  skill,  intimate 
knowledge  of  soils,  climate,  market  facilities,  the  possible  need  and 
cost  of  drainage,  legal  and  hydrographic  study  of  water  supply  and 
water  rights,  the  support  of  the  people;  above  all,  a  sound  and  suit- 
able financial  plan  and  large  executive  ability. 

None  of  these  will  necessarily  follow  the  mere  creation  of  an  irriga- 
tion district,  which  is.  after  all.  a  form  of  organization  solely.  The 
substance  of  the  }>roject  nuist  be  supplied  by  nature  and  the  energy, 
honesty,  and  ability  of  the  men  who  build  and  of  those  who  farm, 
llence  among  irrigation  failures  there  have  been  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  irrigation  district  failures.^ 

*  See  the  able  presentation  of  the  subject  "  Irrigation  districts  in  California,  1887- 
1915."  Bulletin  No.  2,  State  of  California  Department  of  Engineering,  1916,  by  Frank 
Adams,  irrigation  manager,  Office  of  Public  Roads  and  Rural  Engineering.  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture.  Mr.  Adams  divides  the  irrigation  districts  of  California  prior 
to  the  amendatory  act  of  1897  into  speculative  and  nonspeculative  districts  and  asserts 
that  no  district  under  the  California  act  of  1897  haa  failed  financially.     (Id.,  I,  114.) 


10  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATIOISr   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

The  irrigation  district,  while  not  a  "  cure-all,"  is  the  most  satisfac- 
tory inethod  yet  devised  for  the  organization  of  irrigation  projects 
involving  considerable  bodies  of  land. 

Experience  of  the  Federal  Government. — ^The  Federal  Govermnent, 
lifter  15  years'  experience  in  irrigation  work,  through  cooperation 
with  local  settlers  and  private  and  public  corporations,  has  found  that 
the  irrigation  district  is  the  best  form  of  local  organization. 

Secretary  of  the  Interior  Franklin  K.  Lane,  in  his  report  of  July  2, 
1917,  to  the  Committee  on  Irrigation  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
upon  House  resolution  4954,  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  relating  to  irriga- 
tion districts,  said : 

This  department  has  already  contracted  with  numerous  irrigation  districts, 
and  I  find  that  cooperation  with  these  public  corporations  enhances  the  security 
of  tlie  United  States,  gives  facility  in  the  collection  of  moneys  due  to  the  United 
States,  and  at  the  same  time  is  popular  with  the  water  users  themselves,  since 
they  have  the  powers  and  privileges  of  a  public  corporation. 

Moreover,  organization  as  irrigation  districts  binds  to  the  project,  irrespective 
of  individual  consent,  once  the  statutory  majority  has  been  obtained  for  the 
formation  of  and  making  of  contract,  all  the  lands  of  the  project,  and  thereby 
promotes  early  cultivation  of  the  land  and  eliminates  speculation.  (H.  Rept. 
No.  93,  65th  Cong.,  1st  sess.) 

Among  the  projects  of  the  Federal  Reclamation  Service  which  have 
now,  employing  the  State  and  Federal  laws  outlined  below,  substi- 
tuted irrigation  district  organization  for  the  former  water  users' 
associations  organized  under  the  private  corporation  laws  of  the  va- 
rious States,  are  the  following:  The  Minidoka  (Gravity  unit),  in 
Idaho;  the  Fort  Laramie  and  Gering  unit  of  the  North  Platte  proj- 
ect, and  several  subsidiary  cooperative  areas  in  Nebraska;  the  Ele- 
phant Butte  unit  of  the  Rio  Grande  project,  New  Mexico;  the  Wil- 
iston  project,  in  North  Dakota;  the  Klamath,  in  Oregon;  the  El  Paso 
unit  of  the  Rio  Grande  project,  Texas;  the  Mapleton  and  Springville 
units  of  the  Strawberry  Valley  project,  Utah;  and  the  Sunnyside, 
Tieton,  and  several  subsidiary  units  of  the  Yakima  project,  and  the 
Okanogan  project,  Washington.  The  Sun  River,  Montana;  New- 
lands  (Truckee-Carson),  Nevada;  and  Umatilla  west  extension,  Ore- 
gon, are  now  in  process  of  organization. 

Projects  not  Federal. — ^While  the  irrigation  district  idea  is  rap- 
idly gaining  in  favor  among  the  financiei's  and  farmers,  and  it  may 
be  said  that  new  irrigation  development  throughout  the  West  is  now 
being  undei-taken  in  the  main  through  irrigation  district  organiza- 
tion, yet  the  area  of  irrigated  lands  under  such  organization  is  but  a 
comparatively  small  portion  of  the  total  area  of  irrigated  lands. 

The  laws  of  several  of  the  States  now  make  express  provision  for 
the  organization  of  districts,  not  merely  for  construction  purposes 
and  for  improvement  work,  but  for  the  operation  and  maintenance 
of  fully  constructed  projects,  and  the  work  of  reorganizing  as  dis- 
tricts irrigation  systems  hitherto  under  private  corporation  control 
is  under  way  in  various  parts  of  the  West, 

Origin  and  Nature  or  Irrigation  Districts. 

The  irrigation  district  laws  in  their  main  outlines  follow  the  parent 
act  of  California  to  a  large  extent  and  hence,  for  brevity's  sake,  it 
is  deemed  best  to  preface  discussion  of  individual  State  laws  with 
an  outline  of  the  provisions  of  law  which  are  to  a  great  degi'ee  com- 


ORIGIN   AND   NATURE   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICTS.  11 

moil  to  the  various  laws,  noting  subsequent!}"  the  most  important 
points  of  divergence  and  other  special  features  under  the  names  of 
individual  States.  Incidental  reference  is  made  to  the  decisions  of 
State  and  Federal  courts,  although  these  references  are  very  far 
from  a  complete  digest  of  .the  decisions. 

IIi8torlcal.—T\\Q,  honor  of  the  pioneer  in  irrigation  district  legis- 
lation belongs  partly  to  Utah,  for  it  was  there,  in  1805,  that  the  first 
law  was  enacted  applying  the  public  corporation  principles  to  irri- 
gation. (Act  approved  Jan.  20,  1865.  See  the  Compiled  Laws  of 
Utah,  1876,  p.  219.)  This  law  was  repealed  without  having  been  put 
into  successful  operation. 

The  main  credit  in  leadership,  both  as  to  legislation  and  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  principle  in  the  courts,  is  due  to  California.  The 
Wright  Act  of  March  7,  1887,  is  the  parent  enactment  of  almost  all 
of  the  laws  of  the  other  16  States  which  have  now  passed  irrigation 
district  statutes,  and  there  are  about  100  recorded  decisions  of  the 
California  Supreme  Court  and  of  Federal  courts  in  suits  arising  in 
that  State.  This  body  of  decisions  is  doubly  important  since,  as 
held  in  the  case  of  McCord  ^Mercantile  Co.  v.  ]\lclntyre  (138  Pac, 
59;  25  Colo.  App.  (1914),  376),  to  the  extent  of  the  adoption  of  the 
law  of  California  other  States  have  accepted  the  construction  placed 
upon  the  law  by  the  California  courts.  The  same  State  also  led  in 
several  important  amendatory  acts,  including  the  confirmation  act 
(L.  1889,  p.  212),  the  effect  of  which  is  outlined  below,  and  in  1897 
recodified  the  irrigation  district  law  (L.  1897,  p.  254).  All  States 
from  and  including  the  tier  from  North  Dakota  to  Texas  westward 
now  have  irrigation  district  laws,  the  North  and  South  Dakota  Leg- 
islatures having  passed  acts  at  the  1917  session. 

Covporate  nature  of  an  irrigation  distinct. — The  identity  of  the 
legal  character  of  an  irrigation  district  with  that  of  reclamation  dis- 
tricts formed  for  the  drainage  of  swamp  or  overflowed  lands  has  been 
recognized  practically  from  the  start  of  irrigation  district  litigation. 
In  the  case  of  Fallbrook  Irrigation  District  v.  Bradley  (164  U.  S., 
p.  112),  this  identity  was  clearly  recognized: 

The  case  does  not  essentially  differ  from  that  of  Hagar  v.  Reclamation  Dis- 
trict (111  XT.  S.,  701),  where  this  court  held  that  the  power  of  the  Legrislature 
of  California  to  prescribe  a  system  for  reclaiming  swamp  lands  was  not  incon- 
sistent with  any  provisiftn  of  the  Federal  Constitution     *     *     *_ 

Irrigation  is  not  so  different  from  the  reclamation  of  swamps  as  to  require 
the  application  of  other  and  different  principles  to  the  case.  The  fact  that  in 
draining  swamp  lands  it  is  a  necessity  to  drain  the  lands  of  all  owners  which 
^re  similarly  situated,  goes  only  to  the  extent  of  the  peculiarity  of  situation  and 
kind  of  land  (p.  163). 

IrQ^gation  distHcts  are  "public  corporations. — While  there  has  been 
considerable  variation  in  the  opinions  of  courts  as  to  the  precise  defi- 
nition to  apply  to  irrigation  districts,  there  has  been  uniformity  in 
the  decisions  to  the  effect  that  these  corporations  are  public  and 
quasi  municipal  in  character.  The  Fallbrook  case  may  again  be  cited 
in  this  connection  and  this  suit,  it  may  be  noted  in  passing,  was 
one  in  which  exceptionally  eminent  counsel  appeared  including  Ben- 
jamin Harrison,  Joseph  H.  Choate,  and  John  F.  Dillon.  The  court 
said : 

The  formation  of  one  of  these  irrigation  districts  amounts  to  the  creation  of 
a  public  corporation,  and  their  officers  are  public  officers.     This  has  been  held 


12  HANDBOOK   OF   lEEIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

in  the  Supreme  Court  of  California.  (In  re  Madera  Irrigation  District,  92 
Calif.,  296;  People  i:  Selma  District,  98  Calif.,  206.)      (Id.,  p.  174.) 

Many  of  the  earlier  decisions  in  defining  irrigation  districts  desig- 
nated them  municipal  corporations.  Such  a  definition,  however,  was 
found  to  raise  constitutional  questions.  In  Nebraska  the  constitution 
forbade  the  creation  of  municipal  corporations  by  local  boards, 
whereas  the  irrigation  district  law  in  the  formation  of  districts  pur- 
poi'ted  to  confer  a  creative  authority  upon  county  boards.  It  was 
held  that  these  districts  are  public  rather  than  municipal  corpora- 
tions.    (Alfalfa  Irr.  Dist.  v.^  Collins,  64  N.  W.,  1086;  46  Nebr.,  411.) 

The  Washington  constitution  provided  that  "  no  county,  city,  town, 
school  district,  or  other  municipal  corporation  shall "  incur  an  in- 
debtedness in  excess  of  5  per  cent  of  its  taxable  property.  The  su- 
preme court  noted  that  the  term  municipal  as  used  in  the  constitu- 
tion nuist  be  given  a  wider  meaning  than  usual,  but  upheld  the  irri- 
gation district  law  as  not  within  the  prohibition.  In  so  holding  the 
court  pointed  out  that — 

one  of  the  essentials  of  a  municipal  corporation  is  that  for  the  purposes  for 
which  it  is  organized  it  must  affect  all  within  its  boundaries  alike.  A  school 
district  though  organized  only  for  the  purpose  of  providing  means  and  fur- 
nishing facilities  for  the  education  of  its  children,  yet  affects  all  the  taxpayers 
of  such  district  alike.    The  same  may  be  said  of  a  county. 

The  distinction  was  that  the  irrigation  district  does  not  equally 
affect  all  inhabitants,  the  real  property  only  being  assessed  for  a  local 
improvement.  (Board  of  Middle  Kittitas  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Peterson.  29 
Pac,  995,  996:  4  Wash.,  147.) 

The  Idaho  courts  have  adhered  to  the  public  corporation  idea : 

It  is  settled  law  that  irrigation  districts  are  public  corporations  although  not 
strictly  municipal  in  the  sense  of  exercising  governmental  functions  other  than, 
those  connected  with  raising  revenue  to  defray  expenses  of  constructing  and 
operating  irrigation  systems  and  the  conduct  of  the  business  of  the  disti'ict, 
(Indian  Cove  Irr.  Dist.  r.  Prideaux,  quoting  Fallbrook  and  Idaho  cases,  136 
Pac.  618,  021;  25  Idaho  (1913),  112.) 

Other  comparatively  recent  cases  as  to  the  corporate  nature  of 
irrigation  districts  are  to  be  found  as  follows :  Nampa  and  Meridian 
Irrio-ation  District  v.  Briggs  (147  Pac.  75;  27  Idaho,  84)  ;  Rathfon 
V.  Payette-Oregon  Slope  Irrigation  District  (149  Pac,  1044;  76 
Oreg.  (1915),  606)  :  McCord  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Mclntyre  (138  Pac, 
59;  25  Colo.  App.  (1914),  376);  In  re  Gallatin  Irrigation  District 
(140  Pac.  92;  48  Mont.  (1914),  605)  ;  Brown  Bros.  ^^  Columbia  Irri- 
gation District  (144  Pac,  74;  82  Wash.  (1914),  274).  In  the  last- 
named  case  the  Washington  Supreme  Court  held  that  irrigation  dis- 
tricts are  included  within  a  statutory  clause  affecting  "  other  munici- 
pal corporations." 

Formation  of  Irrigation  Districts. 

Petition. — The  earlier  acts  follow  the  original  Wright  Act  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  provide  that  whenever  50  or  a  majority  of  the  landowners 
or  freeholders  owning  land  in  any  district  desire  to  provide  for  the 
irrigation  of  the  same,  they  may  propose  the  organization  of  a  dis- 
trict. This  provision  the  courts  have  interpreted  to  mean  that  the 
petition  must  be  signed  by  a  majority  only  if  the  district  be  such 
that  a  majority  is  less  than    50  owners.      (See   Rothchild  Bros.  v. 


roRMATioisr  or  irrigation  districts.  '  13 

Rollinger  et  al,  73  Pac,  3G7;  32  Wash.,  307.)  The  California  law 
has  now,  however,  been  so  amended  as  to  require  signature  of  the 
petition  by  a  majority  of  the  landowners  representing  a  majority  in 
value,  and  several  States  have  made  similar  changes.  In  their  early 
history  in  California  these  corporations,  due  partly  to  the  difficulties 
incident  to  thrashing  out  the  constitutionality  and  other  legal  fea- 
tures in  the  courts,  but  partly  also  owing  to  the  opposition  of  the 
large  landed  proprietors,  mot  with  much  ill  success.  Experience  in-- 
dicates  that  it  is  safer  to  have  the  support  of  the  majority  of  the 
owners  of  the  lands  to  be  taxed,  even  including  nonresident  pro- 
prietors who  would  be  precluded  under  most  statutes  from  voting 
at  the  organization  election.  ^  There  is,  however,  the  possible  counter 
consideration  that  the  initiation  of  the  district  organization  ought 
not  to  be  dependent  upon  nonresident  owners  who  often  have  only 
a  slight  interest  in  the  community  and  are  frequently  to  be  found  in 
the  absentee  speculator  class. 

The  petition,  with  preliminary  description  of  boundaries,  and  a 
varying  amount  of  information  as  to  the  plans  proposed,  is  pre- 
sented to  the  county  board  or  to  the  local  court  as  may  be  required 
by  the  statute.  The  petition  must  be  accompanied  by  a  bond  in 
double  the  amount  of  the  probable  cost  of  organization.  The. bond, 
however,  is  not  jurisdictional,  but  is  required  as  a  matter  of  security. 
(O'Neill  V.  Yellowstone  Irr.  Dist.,  121  Pas.,  238;  44  Mont.  (1912), 
492.) 

Hearing  on  organization. — A  hearing  is  then  called,  persons  in- 
terested being  notified  by  the  publication,  or  by  both  publication  and 
posting  of  notice  with  petition  attached  for  a  brief  period,  generally 
two  or  three  weeks.  Upon  the  hearing,  after  ascertaining  that  the 
petition  and  notice  are  regular,  the  county  board,  or  the  local  court, 
as  the  case  may  be,  proceeds  to  determine  the  boundaries  and  hear 
petitions  of  landowners  to  be  included  or  excluded  from  the  district. 
In  making  the  determination  of  boundaries  no  land  must  be  included 
which  is  not  benefited  and  the  boundaries  must  not  be  so  modified  as 
to  change  the  object  of  the  petition  or  to  exempt  any  land,  within 
the  boundaries  as  contained  in  the  petition,  susceptible  of  irrigation 
under  the  projected  system.  Adjournment  of  the  hearing  for  fur- 
ther information  may  be  taken,  the  statute  generally  placing  a  maxi- 
mum upon  the  period  of  delay. 

Unless  the  tribunal  in  question  finds  some  obstacle  to  further  pro- 
ceeding an  election  is  called  which  likewise  requires  no  personal 
service  upon  individuals  and  notice  is  given  by  publication  and  post- 
ing of  notices  for  a  second  brief  period. 

Organization  election. — At  the  organization  election  landowners 
must  vote  "  Irrigation  district  yes,"  or  "  Irrigation  district  no,"  and 
the  statutes  vary  from  a  bare  majority  to  a  four-fifths  majority  as 
to  the  vote  necessary  to  carry  the  election.  New  Mexico  is  unique 
in  requiring  a  majority  not  of  the  persons  voting,  but  of  those  en- 
titled to  vote. 

Legal  character  and  effect  of  proceedings. — This  proceeding  for 
organization  is  a  proceeding  in  rem  and  notice  by  personal  service  is 

*  Mr.  Adams's  discussion  of  California  experience  may  be  consulted  with  profit  on  this 
subject.     See  former  citation  to  his  work,  p.  0. 


14  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

not  required.     Publication  in  accordance  with  the  statute  is  suffi- 
cient. 

The  publication  of  a  notice  of  the  proposed  presentation  oi  the  petition  is  a 
sufficient  notification  to  tliose  interested  in  the  question  and  gives  them  an 
opportunity  to  be  heard  before  the  board.     *     *     * 

There  is  notliing  in  the  essential  nature  of  such  a  corporation,  so  far  as  its 
creation  only  is  concerned,  which  requires  notice  to  or  hearing  of  the  parties 
included  therein  before  it  can  be  formed.  It  is  created  for  a  public  purpose, 
and  it  rests  in  the  discretion  of  the  legislature  when  to  create  it,  and  with 
what  powers  to  endow  it.     (Fallbrook  In-.  Dist.  r.  Bradley,  .supra,  p.  174.) 

While  considering  the  effect  of  the  organization  proceedings  it 
should  be  said  that  it  has  long  been  held  that  the  other  proceedings 
by  irrigation  districts  referred  to  below  are  also  proceedings  in  rem, 
and  notice  by  publication  merely  is  valid.  But  one  recent  authority 
will  be  quoted : 

The  organization  of  an  irrigation  district  and  all  proceedings  in  connection 
therewith,  the  voting  <jf  bonds  and  other  matters,  including  the  decree  of  con- 
firmation by  the  district  court,  are  proceedings  in  rem,  and  that  constructive 
service  of  the  notice  required  by  said  act  was  sufficient,  it  is  held,  to  give  each 
and  every  person  interested  in  the  organization  of  such  district  his  day  in  court, 
and  to  give  the  court  jurisdiction  of  the  i^er.sou  and  subject  matter  and  that  any- 
one dissatisfied  with  the  proceedings  or  judgment  of  confirmation  is  given  by  the 
terms  of  said  act  tlie  right  of  appeal,  and  that  under  the  provisions  of  said  act 
it  was  not  necessary  that  personal  serviee  be  made  upon  the  landowners  of  the 
vlistrict  in  order  to  give  the  court  jurisdiction  and  power  to  render  a  judg- 
ment of  confirmation  valid  and  binding  as  against  them  upon  all  occasions 
involved  in  such  cases,  and  that  that  proceeding  does  not  involve  the  taking  of 
property  witlumt  due  process  of  law  nor  in  violation  of  the  obligations  of  a 
contract.  (.Smith  v.  Progressive  Irr.  Dist.,  156  Pac,  1133,  1135,  1136;  28  Idaho 
(1916),  812.) 

While  the  courts  are  not  inclined  to  be  captious  in  construing 
the  statutory  steps  to  be  taken,  and  it  is  fundamental  that  the  law 
should  be  so  construed  as  to  effectuate  its  purpose  to  facilitate  the 
economic  and  permanent  reclamation  of  arid  lands  (Nampa  and 
Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Petrie,  153  Pac,  425,  429;  28  Idaho  (1915), 
227),  nevertheless: 

This  procedure  [i.  e.,  hearing  upon  an  organization  petition]  is  purely  statu- 
tory. The  act  prescribes  in  detail  the  steps  necessary  to  be  taken  to  clothe  the 
district  court  with  authority  to  act,  and  these  statutory  retiuirements  must 
be  fully  met  before  the  court  can  proceed.  (In  re  Gallatin,  140  Pac,  92,  94; 
48  Mont.   (1914),  605.) 

The  hours  during  which  the  polls  are  open  for  an  irrigation  dis- 
trict election  is  an  important  matter,  the  election  being  invalidated 
for  a  defect  in  some  instances  in  others  not.  See  Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist. 
V.  Abila  (39  Pac,  793;  106  Calif.,  355),  holding  the  election  invalid; 
and  Baltes  v.  Farmers'  Irr.  Dist.,  (83  N.  W.,  83;  60  Nebr.,  310), 
reaching  the  opposite  conclusion  under  somewhat  different  circum- 
stances 

A  defective  form  of  ballot  mav  render  an  election  void.  (Edes  v.. 
Haley,  162  Pac,  50;  94  Wash.  (1917),  232.) 

As  regard  the  lands  properly  to  be  included  in  an  irrigation  dis- 
trict, there  are  many  decisions  in  the  reports,  those  cited  below  being 
representative. 

It  was  decided  early  in  the  history  of  irrigation  district  enter- 
prise that  the  boundaries  of  districts  are  within  the  discretion  of  the 
county  board  in  the  absence  of  fraud  and  "  corrupt  purpose." 


FORMATION    OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICTS.  15 

Upon  matters  affecting  their  jurisdiction  the  orders  of  tlie  board  of  super- 
visors may  be  open  to  review,  but  upon  the  question  of  fact  as  to  what  lauds 
will  or  will  not  be  benefited  by  irrigation  their  decision  is  final  and  conclusive. 
(Bd.  of  Modesto  Irr.  Dist.  r.  Tregea,  20  I'ac,  237,  242;  8S  Calif.,  334,  writ  of 
error  dismissed;  164  F.  S.,  179;  41  L.  Ed.,  395.) 

In  the  present  case  the  question  was  necessarily  deteruiini;d  by  the  board 
of  supervisors  of  Stanislaus  County  at  the  ame  the  district  was  organized, 
and,  in  the  absence  of  any  allegation  of  frnud  or  bad  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
board  of  supervisors,  is  conclusive.  (Herring  v.  Modesto  I.  D.,  95  Fed.,  705 
723.) 

The  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  lield  tluit  an  error  of  judg- 
ment by  the  county  board  in  inchiding  land  which  shoukl  not  have 
been  within  the  district  is  not  a  proper  question  for  Federal  review : 

Assuming  for  the  purpose  of  this  objection  that  the  owner  of  these  lands 
had  by  the  provisions  of  the  act,  and  before  the  lands  were  finally  included 
in  the  district,  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  before  a  proper  tribunal  ui)on 
the  question  of  benefits,  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  decision  of  such  a  tribunal. 
in  the  absence  of  actual  fraud  and  bad  faith,  would  be,  so  far  as  this  court 
is  concerned,  conclusive  upon  that  question.  It  can  not  be  that  upon  a  ques- 
tion of  fact  of  such  a  nature  this  court  has  the  power  to  review  the  decision 
of  the  State  tribunal  which  has  been  pronounced  under  a  statute  providing 
for  a  heai'ing  upon  notice.  The  erroneous  decision  of  such  a  question  of  fact 
violates  no  constitutional  pi-ovision.     (Pallbrook  case,  supra,  p.  167.) 

Recent  illustrations  in  States  other  than  California  of  the  same 
doctrine  are:  Smith  v.  Progressive  Irr.  Dist.  (156  Pac,  1133;  28 
Idaho  (1916),  812)  ;  Wilder  v.  Bd.  of  Directors  of  South  Side  Irr. 
Dist.  (135  Pac.  162:  55  Colo.  (1913),  363)  ;  In  re  Gallatin  Irr.  Dist. 
(140  Pac,  92:  48  Mont.  (1914),  605). 

Lands  having  riparian  rights  may  be  included  in  an  irrigation 
district  and  taxed.  (Barstow  v.  Ward  County  Irr.  Dist.  No.  1,  177 
S.  W.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),563.) 

Land  naturally  incapable  of  irrigation  ought  not  to  be  included, 
but  comparatively  small  knolls  or  sloughs  on  a  tract  will  not  neces- 
sarily require  that  the  tract  be  excluded  or  exempt  it  from  assess- 
ment as  a  whole.  (Wight  v.  McGuigan,  143  N.  W.,  232;  94  Nebr. 
(1913),  358.) 

An  attempt  to  digest  the  many  points  of  law  construing  statutory 
provisions  relating  to  the  organization  and  the  government  of  irri- 
gation districts  Avould,  however,  lead  far  beyond  the  limits  of  our 
present  undertaking. 

Inclusion  of  cities  and  towns  within  irrigation  distncts. — It  is  ob- 
vious that  any  municipalities  to  which  the  irrigated  lands  of  the 
project  would  be  directly  tributary  derive  a  great  deal  of  financial 
benefit  from  the  organization  of  the  district  and  the  cultivation  of 
the  land  following  the  construction  of  the  works.  Town  properties 
are  vastly  enhanced  in  value  in  many  instances,  and  their  owners 
should  be  called  upon  to  contribute  to  the  cost. 

The  constitutionality  of  the  California  law,  as  applied  to  town 
lots  which  would  never  be  irrigated  on  account  of  structures  for  non- 
agricultural  purposes  erected  upon  them,  was  under  consideration 
by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Fallbrook  Irri- 
gation District  v.  Bradley,  supra,  and  it  was  there  held,  following  the 
California  decision  of  Modesto  Irrigation  District  v.  Tregea  (88 
Calif.,  334),  that  such  lots  would  be  lawfully  included  in  a  district 
if  it  were  properly  found  that  the  same  were  benefited,  even  though 
indirectly,  by  the  construction  of  the  irrigation  system;^ 

^  Fallbrook  case  at  p.  154,5. 


16  HANDBOOK  OF  IRRIGATION  DISTRICT  LAWS. 

Several  States  provide  for  including  cities  and  towns  within  the 
project  as  a  part  of  the  district  wdiile  others  do  not.  The  inclusion 
of  large  and  populous  municipalities  as  portions  of  irrigation  dis- 
tricts is  not  lightly  to  be  undertaken,  however.  The  farmers  have 
so  large  an  investment  and  so  vital  an  interest  in  the  operation  of 
the  project  that  they  might  resent  the  incorporation  of  such  terri- 
tory as  would  result  in  the  greater  portion  of  the  electorate  being 
composed  of  persons  who  as  lot  owners  merely  have  individually 
a  comparatively  trivial  financial  and  personal  interest  in  the  debts 
and  management  of  the  district.^ 

One  of  the  most  recent  decisions  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the 
inclusion  of  municipalities  in  irrigation  districts  is  that  of  La  Mesa 
Homes  Co.  v.  La  Mesa,  etc.,  Irr.  Dist.  (159  Pac,  593;  173  Calif. 
(1916),  121),  wherein,  as  in  other  decisions  of  courts  of  last  resort, 
the  constitutionality  of  such  inclusion  is  fully  upheld. 

Railroad  froperty. — Upon  principles  similar  to  those  relating  to 
town  property,  the  lands  covered  by  the  rights  of  w^ay  of  railroads 
intersecting  irrigation  districts  are  properly  to  be  included  in  the 
boundaries  of  a  district  and  become  subject  to  assessment.  It  could 
hardly  be  said  that  land  occupied  by  trackage  and  other  realty  im- 
provements for  railroading  is  not  benefited  financially  by  reason  of 
the  increased  freight  which  results  from  the  construction  of  irriga- 
tion works  in  its  vicinity,  and  such  lands  are  doubtless  subject  to 
inclusion  and  taxation. 

Federal  and  State  lands. — For  the  Federal  and  State  lands  page 
23  and  page  60,  respectively,  should  be  consulted. 

C oncurreiice  by  State  engineer  in  formation  of  district. — Several 
of  the  States  now  require  that  the  petition,  together  with  all  plans 
and  maps  for  the  irrigation  system,  be  submitted  to  the  State  engi- 
neer for  his  examination  and  report  to  the  county  board.  The  Idaho 
law  goes  so  far  as  to  provide  that  if  the  State  engineer's  report  shall 
be  adverse,  the  county  board  must  refuse  the  petition  unless  requested 
in  writing  by  three-fourths  of  the  landowners  in  the  proposed  dis- 
trict. Most  of  the  statutes,  however,  stop  short  of  such  a  require- 
ment, and  the  county  board  or  the  local  court,  as  the  case  may  be, 
in  several  States  receives  the  report  as  a  matter  of  advice,  action 
being  as  fully  discretionary  with  the  board  as  though  the  report  had 
not  been  made.  In  some  cases  it  is  incumbent  on  the  board  to  give 
publicity  to  the  report  of  the  State  engineer. 

One  of  the  dangers  which  irrigation  districts  share  with  other 
forms  of  organization  for  irrigation  purposes  is  that  the  local  inter- 
ests, either  in  a  mistaken  spirit  of  loyalty  to  the  home  community 
or  induced  by  desire  for  profit,  may  promote  some  project  which  has 
not  all  the  necessary  foundations  of  soil,  water  supply,  market  facili- 
ties, and  the  like.  Hence  the  provisions  requiring  a  report  by  the 
State  engineer  as  an  official  in  most  cases  free  from  local  bias  and 
self-interest  are  of  great  importance.  In  some  cases  they  would 
prevent  or  postpone  the  adoption  of  questionable  projects,  and  in 
other  cases  they  would  lend  confidence  and  credit  to  meritorious 
projects.  The  advisability  of  such  State  supervision  is  not  pecu- 
liarly to  be  directed  to  irrigation  districts,  for  the  same  comment 

*The  question  of  electorate  is  discussed  >>elow,  at  p.  18. 


FORMATION   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICTS.  17 

is  at  least  equally  applicable  to  projects  organized  in  forms  other 
than  that  of  a  public  corporation. 

These  provisions,  therefore,  should  be  considered  carefully  by  all 
States  Avhich  have  not  as  yet  passed  them,  and  several  of  the  statutes 
can  be  strengthened  to  the  end  that  Avliere  the  State  engineer  is 
doubtful  as  to  the  feasibility  of  the  project,  full  publicity  be  given 
to  his  views,  and  that  the  plans  be  required  to  be  amended  or  the 
district  voters  assent  after  full  consideration. 

Conclusive nes!^  of  organisation. — Iri-espoctivc  of  the  decree  result- 
ing from  confirmation  proceedings,^  it  is  not  easy  to  nullify  the 
organization  of  an  irrigation  district  once  it  is  established  as  a  cor- 
poration in  fact  under  a  constitutional  statute  and  is  exercising  its 
corporate  functions.  There  may  be  defects  in  the  legal  proceedings 
whereby  the  organization  was  intended  to  be  perfected.  Courts  have 
held  in  numerous  cases  that  such  de  facto  district  can  not  be  attacked 
collaterally,  as  for  example  in  foreclosure  proceedings  for  the  collec- 
tion of  district  assessments.  A  Federal  circuit  court  of  appeals  has 
said : 

The  question  of  the  legality  of  the  organization  of  the  irrigation  district 
may  not  be  raised  collaterally  if  the  district  be  acting  under  color  of  law  and 
the  State  acquiesces  therein.  (People  v.  Linda  Vista  Irr.  Dist.,  128  Calif., 
484;  61  Pac,  86;  Miller  r.  Perris  Irr.  Dist.,  85  Fed.,  693;  Quinton  v.  Equitable 
Inv.  Co.,  196  Fed.   (1912),  314,  317.) 

In  fact,  it  has  been  held  that  the  validity  of  irrigation  districts,  in 
common  with  other  similar  public  corporations,  is  subject  to  direct 
attack  only  by  the  State,  either  at  the  instance  of  the  attome}'  gen- 
eral or  upon  the  relation  of  private  persons  alleging  themselves  ag- 
grieved. (See  Miller  v.  Perris  Irr.  Dist.,  85  Fed.,  693;  92  Fed.,  263, 
and  Holland  v.  Avondale  Irr.  Dist.,  166  Pac,  259;  30  Idaho  (1917), 
479.) 

Moreover,  the  principles  of  estoppel  may  often  be  of  avail  in  pre- 
venting a  successful  denial  of  the  valid  organization  of  an  irrigation 
district.  For  example,  the  district  itself  obviously  can  not  plead  the 
invalidity  of  its  organization  as  a  defense  to  the  district  debts,  and 
the  district  officers  and  all  landowners  who  signed  the  petition  for 
formation  or  voted  for  organization  are  estopped  to  plead  the  de- 
fective status  of  the  district. 

In  a  case  before  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  the  doctrine  of 
estoppel  was  applied  where  an  irrigation  district  had  received  con- 
sideration for  a  bond  issue  sold  and  had  built  the  irrigation  works; 
but— 

Notwithstanding  these  facts,  it  [the  district]  now  refuses  to  pay  the  bonds  or 
the  interest  thereon  and,  while  acting  as  a  corporation  at  all  times,  still  sets 
up  that  it  was  never  legally  organized,  and  hence  had  no  legal  right  to  issue 
any  bonds. 

In  the  case  of  Douglas  County  Commissioners  r.  Bolles  (94  U.  S.,  104,  110).  a 
case  involving  facts  somewhat  similar,  this  court  said :  "  l^nnmon  honesty  de- 
mands that  a  debt  thus  incuri-ed  should  be  paid."  That  sentiment  has  lost  no 
force  by  the  lapse  of  time,  and  we  think  it  applies  in  its  full  strength  to  this 
case.     (Tulare  Ii'rigation  District  v.  Shepard,  185  U.  S.,  1,  S. ) 

Some  States,  as  severally  noted  below,  in  addition  to  provision  for 
judicial  confirmation,  place  a  statutory  limit  upon  the  period  during 

*  See  our  discussion  of  confirmation  proceedings  below,   p.  47. 
160047—20 2 


18  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

which  any  defect  in  the  proceedings  for  organization  may  be  liti- 
gated. After  quoting  from  the  confirmation  act  and  the  statute  of 
limitations  as  contained  in  the  California  irrigation  district  act,  a 
Federal  court  said : 

These  two  statutes,  taken  together,  furnished  the  irrigation  district  with  a 
plain  and  speedy  metliod  of  procedure  for  determining  the  legality  of  the  pro- 
ceedings under  which  it  was  brought  into  existence,  and  gave  to  the  public 
dealing  with  such  a  corporation  the  protection  of  a  just  and  reasonable  statute 
of  limitation  against  the  defense  that  its  formation  was  irregular  and  its  birth 
illegitimate.     (Herring  r.  Modesto  Irr.  Dist.,  95  Fed.  705,  721.) 

Unless  the  period  named  in  the  statute  is  so  brief  as  to  fail  to  give 
reasonably  diligent  persons  opportunity  to  take  action  in  the  courts, 
and  thus  result  in  the  violation  of  the  constitutional  provision  re- 
quiring due  process  of  law,  the  courts  hold  the  limitation  valid  and 
conclude  the  right  of  action.  The  presumption  strongly  favors  the 
validity  of  the  statute.  (17  Rul.  Cas.  Law,  678;  Hayes  v.  Douglas 
County,  65  N.  W.,  482 ;  92  Wis.  429.) 

The  principles  of  de  facto  corporations,  estoppel,  and  statutory 
limitation,  applied  to  irrigation  districts  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs 
are  in  no  respect  different  from  those  long  declared  applicable  to 
other  varieties  of  public  corporations. 

The  most  important  means  of  securing  repose  as  to  the  legality  of 
the  irrigation  district  organization  proceedings  is  by  the  direct  judi- 
cial confirmation.  This  is  primarily  a  proceeding  in  settlement  of  the 
validity  of  a  bond  issue,  and  hence  is  discussed  below,  page  47,  but 
inasmuch  as  the  decree  in  confirmation  settles  the  validity  of  the 
organization  just  as  conclusively  as  that  of  the  bond  issue,  the  reader 
should  bear  it  in  mind  equally  in  the  present  connection. 

Elections  and  Qualifications  for  Voting. 

The  statutes  provide  for  the  conduct  of  elections,  generally  making 
applicable  the  provisions  of  the  general  election  laws  of  the  State 
excepting  so  far  as  modified  by  the  provisions  of  the  irrigation  dis- 
trict acts.  As  a  rule  prior  registration  and  any  particular  form  of 
ballot  are  expressly  dispensed  with.  Provision  is  made  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  election  officers  and  notice  of  all  elections  is  required 
to  be  given  and  the  polling  hours  are  fixed  by  the  statutes.  After 
the  organization  election  the  county  board  is  required  to  publicly 
canvass  the  votes.  Subsequently  canvass  is  made  by  the  district 
board.  Election  precincts  are  provided  for  by  the  board  in  such  num- 
ber as  will  facilitate  the  voting.  At  general  and  special  elections  a 
majority  of  the  ^otes  cast  suffice  to  carry  the  measure  proposed, 
whereas  in  the  formation  of  the  district  and  the  incurring  of  in- 
debtedness larger  majorities  are  frequently  required  by  statute. 
This  will  be  found  recited  under  the  head  of  particular  statutes. 

Provision  is  likewise  made  in  several  States  for  the  care  of  ballots, 
for  their  retention  for  a  certain  period,  and  for  their  ultimate  de- 
struction. The  board  of  directors  enters  in  the  records  of  the  dis- 
trict a  statement  in  detail  as  to  the  results  and  delivers  certificates 
of  election  to  the  persons  chosen. 

Qualifcafiorhs  of  voters. — The  statutes  differ  radically  as  to  the 
qualifications  for  voting,  and  the  requirements  which  govern  in  each 
of  the  various  States  will  appear  later.    In  some  States  no  property 


ELECTIOlSrS  AND  QUALIFICATIONS  FOR  VOTING.  19 

qualification  is  required,  residence  in  the  district  alone  beint^  sufficient. 
By  far  the  greater  number,  however,  require  ownership  of  land, 
either  in  general  terms  or  to  a  given  acreage,  as  in  Nebraska;  or 
the  voter  may  merely  have  a  leasehold  in  State  land  or  an  entry  of 
Federal  land  as  a  necessary  qualification.  Different  re(|uirements  are 
sometimes  imposed  in  the  case  of  an  election  for  the  incurring  of  a 
bonded  debt  than  for  an  election  for  general  purposes.  Several 
States  confine  the  right  to  vote  to  the  owners  of  "  agricultural  land." 

In  most  of  the  jurisdiction  all  tliose  who  are  entitled  to  Aote  have 
the  same  voting  power,  l)ut  in  Utah  votes  at  all  elections  are  cast  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  acre-feet  of  water  which  each  landowner 
is  entitled  to  use,  provision  being  made  for  signed  ballots:  and  in 
Nevada  each  landowner  at  elections  to  incur  a  bonded  indebtedness 
or  to  authorize  a  contract  with  the  United  States  has  one  vote  for  each 
dollar  of  benefit  assessment  apportioned  to  his  land,  with  a  provision 
for  prior  registration. 

It  is  not  deemed  probable  that  the  qualifications  prescribed  for 
voters  under  the  district  laws  in  either  Nevada  or  Utah  will  meet 
with  favor  or  prove  satisfactory  or  workalile.  In  one  case  the  voting 
power  is  measured  by  dollars  while  in  the  other  it  is  measured  by  the 
quantity  of  water  used.  The  first  encourages  large  and  speculative 
holdings  and  the  second  places  a  premium  on  the  excessive  use  of 
water.  Each  plan  overlooks  the  fact  that,  as  a  rule,  one  with  a  small 
farm  may  have  the  home  idea  as  well  instilled  in  his  nature  and  be 
as  interested  in  the  permanent  success  of  the  project,  as  one  who  owns 
a  farm  16  times  as  large  (thereby  paying  taxes  proportionately)  and 
has  16  votes  to  his  1. 

Under  the  Nevada  law  one  whose  home  farm  consists  of  4  acres 
would  have  but  4  votes,  as  against  40  votes  for  the  160-acre  land 
owner.  Under  the  Utah  law  the  farmer  who  knows  best  how  to  con- 
serve and  prevent  the  waste  of  water,  and  who  may.  with  2  acre-feet 
of  water,  produce  crops  on  a  par  with  another  using  6  acre-feet  on 
the  same  kind  of  soil,  will  have  but  one-third  as  much  voting  strength 
with  the  same  acreage. 

The  argument  in  support  of  either  plan  is  on  a  par  with  the  argu- 
ment that  the  average  voter  be  allowed  votes  in  proportion  to  his 
age,  wealth,  experience,  education,  or  station  in  life.  It  was  once 
urged  that  a  bachelor  should  pay  no  school  district  tax  because  he 
had  no  children  in  school,  and  that  families  with  children  should 
pay  taxes  and  be  given  votes  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  children 
of  school  age  in  the  family.  This  would  encourage  celibacy  among 
the  unmarried  and  small  families  among  the  married.  Such  a  plan 
of  participation  in  the  affairs  of  a  school  district  Avould  be  no  more 
pernicious  than  are  the  Nevada  and  Utah  qualifications  for  voters  in 
irrigation  districts,  and  it  is  quite  likely  the  laws  of  both  of  those 
States  will  be  amended  upon  this  point  in  the  near  future. 

The  provisions  of  the  Idaho  irrigation  district  act  of  March  6, 
1911.  placing  property  qualification  upon  voters  in  an  irrigation 
district,  requiring  that  ballots  be  marked,  and  declaring  residence 
within  the  State  as  sufficient  have  been  declared  invalid.  It  was 
held  that  the  law  in  these  respects  was  contrary  to  the  constitutional 
provisions  prohibiting  ])roperty  qualifications,  protecting  the  secrecy 
of  the  ballot,  and  requiring  a  period  of  six  months'  residence  in  the 
county  as  prerequisite  to  voting.     The  opinion  of  the  supreme  court 


20  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATIOlsr   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

was  based  upon  the  public  character  of  the  corporation.     (Pioneer 
Irr.  Dist.  v.  Walker,  119  Pac,  304;  20  Idaho,  605.) 

Other  States  have  not  agreed  with  Idaho  as  to  the  applicability  of 
similar  constitutional  provisions  to  elections  held  by  irrigation  dis- 
tricts. The  Supreme  Court  of  Oregon,  after  citing  the  Idaho  de- 
cision, upheld  the  irrigation  district  law  which  permitted  nonresi- 
dents to  vote,  and  imposed  a  property  qualification  as  a  condition 
to  voting.     The  court  reached  the  following  conclusion : 

We  believe  we  are  not  ruii!  ing  counter  to  section  2,  article  2,  of  the  consti- 
tntion  in  this  conclusion,  and  a  contrary  holding  would  work  a  great  wrong 
npon  the  farmers,  who  may  obtain  considerable  benefit  under  such  an  organiza- 
tion, and  who.  on  the  other  hand,  might  l)e  burdened  by  debt  beyond  the  bene- 
fits conferred:  and  its  affairs  should  be  left  exclusively  to  those  affected  thereby. 
(Board  of  Directors  of  Payette-Oregon  Slope  Irrigation  District  v.  Peterson, 
128  Pac,  837,  840 ;  64  Oreg..  46  ) 

A  similar  conclusion  has  been  reached  as  to  the  constitutionality 
of  the  election  provisions  of  the  California  irrigation  district  law, 
construing,  however,  constitutional  terms  quite  different  from  those 
in  Idaho.  (In  re  Bonds  of  Madera  Irrigation  District,  28  Pac,  272; 
92  Calif.,  296;  rehearing  denied,  28  Pac,  675;  92  Calif.,  296.) 

It  is  probable  that  Idaho  stands  alone  among  the  irrigation  dis- 
trict States  in  not  taking  note  of  the  fundamental  distinction  be- 
tween public  corporations  for  the  ordinary  Government  purposes 
and  public  corporations  formed  for  improvement  purposes,  as  re- 
gards the  applicability  of  constitutional  provisions  such  as  those 
above  referred  to.  This  distinction  is  noted  generally  throughout 
the  country  also  as  regards  cities  and  towns  when  performing  the 
functions  of  improvement  districts  as  contracted  with  the  ordinary 
work  of  the  Government.  Property  qualifications  in  the  former 
class  of  cases  have  been  held  not  violative  of  constitutional  pro- 
visions relating  to  elections.  The  California  Supreme  Court  has 
reached  this  conclusion  as  regards  election  provisions  in  laws  for 
the  kindred  purpose  of  reclamation  by  drainage.  (People  v.  Recla- 
mation District,  117  Calif.,  14;  48  Pac,  1016;  People  v.  Sacramento 
Drainage  District,  103  Pac,  207;  155  Calif,  373.  See  also  infra 
p.  67.) 

District  Officers. 

TJie  hoard  of  directors  and  its  functions. — The  powers  of  the  irri- 
gation district  are  exercised  through  a  board  of  directors.  The 
standard  number  of  members  is  three,  but  under  recent  acts  some 
times  A-aries  in  accordance  with  the  size  of  the  district  or  is  made  a 
question  determinable  at  a  special  election.  In  several  States  the 
members  of  the  board  are  elected  at  large  and  in  others  by  the  voters 
of  respective  subdivisions  of  the  district. 

All  property  of  the  district  is  taken  in  the  name  of  the  district 
by  the  board  and  is  dedicated  to  the  purposes  of  the  law.  The 
board  has  power  to  acquire  property  by  the  exercise  of  the  right  of 
eminent  domain  or  otherwise  and  must  administer  all  district  prop- 
ertv.  The  district  mav  sue  and  be  sued,  the  conduct  of  cases  being 
in  the  hands  of  the  board  of  directors  who  hire  an  attorney  for  the 
purpose,  since  no  public  official  occupies  the  position  of  counsel  for 
the  board.  The  board  is  authorized  to  secure  and  remove  agents 
and  employees. 


COOPERATION   WITH   THE   UNITED  STATES.  21 

The  board  may  enter  upon  any  land  to  make  surveA^s  and  may  lo- 
cate the  necessary  irrigation  works.  The  construction  of  works  is 
in  charge  of  the  board  whicli  is  in  some  States  expressly  required 
to  secure  the  services  of  a  competent  engineer.  Provision  is  made 
for  the  awarding  of  contracts  to  the  lowest  responsible  bickler  after 
proper  advertisement  therefor,  and  the  States  differ  as  to  whether 
the  board  may  refrain  from  letting  contracts  for  the  construction 
of  irrigation  works  and  pursue  the  course  of  doing  the  construction 
work  with  its  own  forces. 

Means  of  supervision  by  the  State  through  the  State  engineer  over 
construction  Avork  are  now  receiving  favor  Avith  the  legislatures, 
Such  a  requirement  protects  the  landowners  and  the  creditors  of 
the  district  and  is  a  valuable  addition  to  the  law.  In  the  early  days 
of  irrigation  development,  not  only  by  districts  but  by  private  cor- 
porations there  was  a  tendency  to  engage  upon  large  enterprises  with 
engineering,  legal  and  executive  ability  of  two  inexperienced  a 
grade  to  accomplish  the  best  results.  This  tendency  has  been  over- 
come to  a  large  extent  in  recent  years  but  the  supervision  of  State 
agencies  gives  an  additional  guarantee  of  safety  provided  that  State 
officials  are  chosen  who  will  not  unduly  hamper  the  officers  of  the 
district  by  the  imposition  of  restrictive  regulations.  Such  a  pro- 
vision of  law  has  been  held  valid  in  the  case  of  Riverside  Reservoir 
&  Land  Co.  v.  Green  City  Irr.  Dist.  (151  Pac,  443;  59  Colo.  (1915), 
514). 

Meetings  of  the  board  are  generally  required  to  be  public.  Notice 
of  the  time  and  i)lace  of  meetings  is  generally  necessary,  and  pro- 
vision is  made  also  as  to  the  quorum. 

As  will  be  more  fully  described  below  the  perpetual  operation  and 
maintenance  of  the  system  devolves  upon  the  board  of  directors. 
The  board  also  has  important  functions  in  the  levy  of  the  assess- 
ments also  referred  to  hereafter. 

Other  district  officer-i^. — The  laws  differ  as  to  several  of  the  dis- 
trict officers,  some  providing  that  the  district  shall  have  its  own 
treasurer  and  assessor  and  collector  of  taxes,  others  providing  that 
the  treasurer  and  assessor  of  the  county  where  the  lands  or  the 
major  portion  thereof  lie  shall  act  as  ex-officio  officers  of  the  district. 
If  those  offices  are  not  consolidated  with  similar  county  offices  their 
incumbents  are  chosen  by  the  electors  of  the  district.  The  board  has 
appointive  powers  as  to  the  attorney,  engineer,  secretary,  and  other 
officers  of  the  district. 

Cooperation  With  the  United  States. 

Provisions  in  State  Imm. — Among  the  powers  conferred  upon  the 
board  of  directors  is  that  of  cooperation  with  the  United  States. 
The  board  is  authorized,  in  lieu  of  constructing  the  works  by  con- 
tract with  private  construction  corporations  or  the  district's  forces, 
to  contract  with  the  Federal  Government  so  that  the  United  States 
shall  construct  the  works  under  the  Federal  reclamation  law,  lend- 
ing the  money  to  the  district  either  with  or  without  the  issuance  of 
bonds  for  such  purpose. 

Laws  to  this  end  have  been  enacted  in  all  of  the  17  States  re- 
ferred to  in  this  compilation  except  Wyoming  and  Kansas.  The 
powers  of  the  board  with  respect  to  making  the  contract  referred  to 


22  HAI^DBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

extend  to  the  negotiation  of  the  terms  of  agreement,  but  except  in 
North  and  South  Dakota  the  contract  must  be  authorized  by  a  vote  of 
the  electors  of  the  district  after  proper  notice  stating  tlie  total  amount 
of  money,  exclusive  of  operation  and  maintenance  charges,  penalties 
and  interest,  proposed  to  be  payable  to  the  United  States  under  the 
contract.  In  the  two  States  last  named,  although  no  express  pro- 
vision for  an  election  upon  a  contract  is  required,  it  is  preferable 
that  an  election  be  had  in  the  same  manner  as  in  case  of  an  election 
upon  a  proposed  bond  issue.  The  district  board  is  authorized  not 
only  to  contract  for  the  construction  of  the  works  by  the  United 
States,  generally  including  expressly  both  water  supply  and  drain- 
age systems,  but  also  for  the  acquisition,  purchase,  extension,  and 
operation  and  maintenance  of  existing  works,  or  for  the  assumption 
as  principal  or  guarantor  of  indebtedness  to  the  United  States  on  ac- 
count of  district  lands.  It  is  under  the  latter  described  clause  that 
the  majority  of  the  irrigation  districts  formed  upon  Federal  projects 
named  above  have  made  contracts.  The  districts  assume  a  liability 
to  the  United  States  for  the  project  debt  in  place  of  the  former  water 
users'  associations. 

The  neAv  Federal  project  in  Idaho,  the  King  Hill,  is  organized  as 
an  irrigation  district  and  has  made  agreement  with  the  United  States 
without  being  preceded  by  contracts  with  individual  landowners  as  is 
the  case  upon  the  earlier  projects. 

There  are  over  20  irrigation  districts,  in  addition  to  those  named 
above,  chiefly  adjacent  to,  and,  in  a  broad  sense,  a  part  of,  the  Boise 
project,  Idaho;  North  Platte  project,  Wyoming-Nebraska;  and 
Yakima  project,  Washington,  which  have  made  contracts  with  the 
United  States  for  the  payment  of  moneys  in  consideration  for  a 
water  supply  purchased  by  the  districts  under  the  so-called  AVarren 
Act  of  February  21,  1911,  entitled  "  An  act  to  authorize  the  Gov- 
ernment to  contract  for  impounding,  storing,  and  carriage  of  water 
and  to  cooperate  in  the  construction  and  use  of  reservoirs  and  canals 
under  reclamation  projects,  and  for  other  purposes "  (36  Stat., 
925).  This  law  expressly  authorizes  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
to  contract  with  irrigation  districts. 

AMien  contract  is  executed  with  the  United  States  pursuant  to 
State  statute,  provision  may  be  made  that  the  delivery  and  distribu- 
tion of  water  for  district  lands  shall  accord  with  the  acts  of  Congi-ess 
and  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  there- 
imder.  Moreover,  the  requirements  of  law  regulating  the  making 
and  levy  of  assessment  for  district  purposes  are  rendered  more 
elastic  to  follow  such  different  procedure  as  may  be  required  in 
order  to  comport  with  the  Federal  laws  and  the  provisions  of  con- 
tracts previously  entered  into  in  order  to  carry  out  the  Federal  laws, 
so  that  the  districts  may  collect  the  moneys  to  become  due  from 
respective  tracts  throughout  the  district.  To  this  end,  in  States 
where  assessments  are  required  to  be  made  according  to  acreage  or 
according  to  benefit,  as  the  case  may  be,  the  district,  where  contract 
is  made  with  the  United  States,  may  make  and  levy  assessments  in 
accordance  with  the  installment  basis  prescribed  by  the  Federal  laws. 
Other  important  provisions  are  inserted  to  facilitate  cooperation 
with  the  United  States.  For  example,  the  board  is  authorized  to 
convey  to  the  United  States  any  rights  of  way  or  other  property 
acquired  by  the  district  in  so  far  as  the  same  may  be  needed  for 


COOPERATIOlSr   WITH   THE   UNITED  STATES.  23 

construction,   operation,   or  maintenance  of  works   by  the   United 
States  for  the  benefit  of  the  district. 

The  8u2)renie  Court  of  I(hiho  has  several  times  passed  upon  the 
l^oAver  of  the  State  and  the  United  States  to  contract  for  the  purpose 
of  cooperation  under  the  rechimation  and  Warren  acts,  and  has 
reached  the  conchision  that  sucli  contracts  are  validated  both  by 
the  State  and  Federal  hnvs : 

That  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has  the  power  to  enter  into  a  contract 
to  siipply  water  to  an  irriguiion  district  under  the  provisions  of  tlie  act  of 
Congress  of  Jxine  17,  1902,  known  as  tlie  reclamation  act  (32  Stat.  L.,  388; 
7  Fed.  Stats.  Ann.,  1098;  U.  S.  Comp.  St.  1913,  sees.  47()(M1708),  we  thinlj 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  If  there  was  any  doubt  of  the  authority  of  that  oflicial 
to  enter  into  sucli  contracts,  it  was  clearly  removed  by  the  act  of  Congress 
of  February  21.  1911,  known  as  the  Warren  Act  (36  Stat.  L.,  92."),  sec.  2;  U.  S. 
Comp.  St.  1913,  sec.  4739),  and  the  subsequent  enactment  of  Congress  passed 
August  13,  1914,  known  as  the  reclamatif)n  extension  act  (ch.  247,  sec.  7,  38 
Stat.,  688).  (Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  r.  Petrie,  153  Pac,  425,  428;  28 
Idaho,  227.) 

This  case  was  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
and  was  there  dismissed  on  the  ground  of  lack  of  jurisdiction.  The 
same  court  also  upheld  contracts  between  irrigation  districts  and  the 
United  States  in  the  cases  of  Pioneer  Irrigation  District  v.  Stone  (130 
Pac,  382;  23  Idaho,  344),  and  Hillcrest  Irrigation  District  v.  Brose 
(133  Pac,  663 ;  24  Idaho,  376) . 

Federal  lands  in  imgatio)h  districfs. — Where  districts  have  not 
availed  themselves  of  an  act  introduced  by  Representative  Addison  T. 
Smith,  of  Idaho,  approved  August  11,  1916  (39  Stat.,  506),  and  there 
are  unpatented  public  lands  within  their  boundaries,  they  are  much 
hampered  in  their  operations.  The  following  by  tlie  Supreme  Court 
of  Idaho  as  to  irrigation  districts  in  that  State  might  be  truthfully 
said  of  several  of  the  Western  States : 

In  many  cases  title  to  arid  lands  can  not  be  acquired  from  the  General  Gov- 
ernment without  water  for  irrigation  purposes,  arid  in  none  of  the  irrigation 
districts  organized  in  this  State  were  the  lands  included  therein  all  patented 
at  the  time  the  district  was  organized.  (Indian  Cove  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Prideaux, 
136  Pac,  618,  620;  25  Idaho  (1913),  112.) 

Several  of  the  legislatures  years  ago  made  provision  that  entrymen 
upon  public  lands  of  the  United  States  may  sign  as  petitioners  for 
the  formation  of  irrigation  districts  and  after  the  district  is  formed 
may  .vote.  The  courts  of  last  resort  in  irrigation  States  have  not 
been  in  accord  with  reference  to  the  status  of  public  lands  of  the 
United  States  in  districts. 

In  Idaho  the  view  was  taken  that  irrigation  bonds  issued  against 
entered  public  lands  of  the  United  States  "  would  be  valid  and  bind- 
ing to  the  extent  at  least  of  the  title,  interest,  or  claim  of  such  entry- 
man  in  and  to  such  lands  whether  acquired  by  him  from  the  State 
or  the  General  Government."  The  question  "  as  to  what  liability 
the  bonds  would  impose  upon  such  lands  beyond  and  in  excess  of  the 
interest  acquired  or  held  by  the  entryman  "  was  declared  not  to  con- 
cern the  court  in  the  case  at  bar.  (Gem.  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Johnson,  109 
Pac,  845;  18  Idaho,  386.)  The  same  court  in  the  Indian  Cove  irri- 
gation district  case  (citation  above)  held  that  "  whatever  property 
rights  or  interest  respondent  (an  entryman  who  had  not  yet  obtained 
his  patent)  may  have  in  the  lands  in  question  (his  desert  entry)  are 
subject  to  the  laws  of  the  State  not  in  conflict  with  the  Federal  laws 
on  the  same  question." 


24  HANDBOOK   OF  IRRIGATION  DISTRICT  LAWS. 

The  Montana  Supreme  Court  has  declared  "that  a  settler  upon 
Government  lands  does  not  have  a  taxable  interest  in  the  land  prior 
to  making  final  proof  has  been  the  universal  holding,  or  practically 
so,  of  all  the  authorities."  (In  re  Gallatin  Irrigation  District,  140 
Pac,  92,  94;. 48  Mont.  (1914),  605.) 

The  Supreme  Court  of  California  early  held  that  entered  public 
lands  of  the  United  States  prior  to  the  issuance  of  patent  were  not 
susceptible  of  assessment  by  an  irrigation  district,  but  that  the  inclu- 
sion of  such  public  lands  in  a  district  would  not  necessarily  invali- 
date the  organization.  (In  re  Madero  Irrigation  District  Bonds, 
28  Pac,  272 ;  92  Calif.,  296.)  The  same  court  went  so  far  as  to  hold 
that  lands  so  included  within  a  district  would  not  be  assessable  even 
after  patent  had  issued  in  the  absence  of  the  consent  of  the  United 
States  or  the  purchaser. 

The  following  is  quoted  from  the  case  of  the  Nevada  National 
Bank  V.  Poso  Irr.  Dist.  (72  Pac,  1056;  140  Calif.,  344)  : 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  so  long  as  the  said  land  now  owned  by  the  inter- 
vener i*emained  public  land  of  the  United  States  no  liability  created  by  the 
State  or  district  attached  thereto. 

The  further  question  then  arises :  Did  the  sale  and  conveyance  by  the 
United  States  to  the  intervener  or  her  grantor  operate  to  charge  it  with  a  pre- 
existing liability  not  created  or  assented  to  either  by  the  Government  or  its 
grantee?  This  question  must  also  be  answei*ed  in  the  negative,  for,  if  the 
grantee  of  the  United  States  must  talve  the  land  burdened  with  the  liability 
of  an  irrigation  district  made  to  include  it  without  the  assent  of  the  Govern- 
ment or  the  purchaser,  it  attaches  a  condition  to  the  disposal  of  the  property 
of  the  Government  without  its  sanction  or  consent,  and  which  must,  in  such 
cases,  interfere  with  its  disposal.     (Id.,  pp.  1057,  10.58.) 

This  rule  necessitates  the  prosecuting  of  statutory  proceedings  for 
the  annexation  of  the  lands  to  the  district  upon  petition  of  the  owner. 
The  contrary  view  of  the  assessability  of  lands  after  patent  has 
issued,  which  had  previously  been  included  in  a  district,  was  taken 
by  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  Colorado  in  the  case  of  Carson  v.  Cud- 
worth,  and  it  was  held  that  the  patent  related  back  to  the  issuance 
of  the  receiver's  receipt.     (140  Pac,  935 ;  25  Colo.  App.  (1914) ,  131.) 

C ongressimial  act  in  favor  of  districts. — It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that  in  order  to  assure  the  proper  assessment  for  irrigation  purposes 
of  land  in  which  the  Federal  Government  retains  an  interest,  the 
districts  should  promptly  avail  themselves  of  the  Smith  Act.  The 
purposes  of  this  law  will  be  found  well  stated  in  the  "  Eegulations 
concerning  State  irrigation  districts  in  their  relations  to  the  public 
lands  of  the  United  States,"  approved  by  Secretary  Lane  on  March 
6,  1918,  and  issued  by  Commissioner  Clay  Tallman,  of  the  General 
Land  Office,  in  part  as  follows : 

Briefly  stated,  tlie  purpose  and  effect  of  this  statute  is  to  empower  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior,  following  the  presentation  of  a  proper  ai)plication  therefor, 
to  investigate  the  plans  and  financial  and  physical  resources  of  irrigation  dis- 
tricts heretofore  or  hereafter  organized  pursuant  to  the  law  of  ;iny  State, 
and,  if  he  shall  find  and  conclude  that  any  such  district  has  phinned  and  is 
executing  an  altogether  meritorious  and  feasible  irrigation  undertaking,  to 
grant  his  approval  of  its  plan  and  undertaking,  provided  a  majority  acre- 
age thereof  is  not  unentei-ed  land,  to  the  end  that  upon  such  approval,  and 
upon  compliance  by  such  districts  with  certain  conditions  in  said  act  specifi- 
cally set  forth,  all  unentered  public  land  and  land  which  has  been  entered,  but 
upon  which  final  certificate  has  not  issued,  shall  be  amenable  to  the  State 
laws  governing  the  district  to  the  same  extent  and  upon  like  terms  as  are 
privately  owned  lands  within  said  districts. 


COOPEKATION   WITH   THE   UNITED  STATES.  25 

Tax  liens  upon  unentered  and  unpatented  lands  are  expressly  provided  for, 
and  no  entry  of  lands  can  be  made  until  all  charges  and  liens  under  the  district 
laws  are  paid. 

Provision  is  also  made  for  tax  sale  of  entered  lands  and  tax  liens  against 
unentered  lands. 

These  regulations  conveniently  set  forth  the  bill,  and  may  be  had 
upon  application.  They  are  also  published  in  volume  4(5  of  the 
Decisions  of  the  Department  of  the  Interior  Relating-  to  Public 
Lands,  page  307. 

Additional  congressional  action  desirahle. — The  Smith  Act^  should 
be  broadened  to  provide  similar  relief  for  drainage  districts,  and 
might  also  be  amended  so  that  districts  of  both  types  in  which  the 
major  part  of  the  land  is  unentered  public  lands  of  the  United  States 
might  still  avail  themselves  of  the  law  in  cases  where  the  district 
contracts  with  the  United  States  under  the  Federal  reclamation  laws. 
The  reasons  underlying  the  prohibition  against  the  recognition  of 
districts  having  a  major  portion  of  unentered  public  lands  are  not 
applicable  when  a  Federal  project  is  undertaken. 

Statutory  har  to  farm  loa/ns  should  he  removed. — Another  impor- 
tant piece  of  legislation  should  be  enacted  by  Congress  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cooperation  with  irrigation  districts.  Under  the  terms  of 
an  act  entitled  "  An  act  providing  for  patents  on  reclamation  entries, 
and  for  other  purposes,"  approved  August  9,  1912  (37  Stat.,  265), 
lands  patented  within  reclamation  projects  are  required  to  be  bur- 
dened by  the  reservation  of  a  lien  in  the  patent  for  the  payment  of 
reclamation  charges.  Where  irrigation  districts  are  formed  upon 
Federal  projects  and  contract  with  the  United  States,  the  reserved 
lien  upon  patented  public  lands  is  not  necessary  for  the  safegtiarding 
of  the  Federal  reclamation  fund,  the  Government  having  the  same 
ample  security  as  for  the  repajniient  of  charges  against  other  private 
lands  of  the  project  within  the  irrigation  district.  The  methods  of 
assessment  and  levy  for  payment  to  the  Federal  Government  by  irri- 
gation districts  are  described  below. 

The  reservation  of  the  lien  in  the  patent  is  tantamount  to  a  mort- 
gage in  favor  of  the  United  States,  and  has  been  very  properly  held 
by  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  to  preclude  the  approval  of  loans 
upon  lands  burdened  thereby,  since  the  Federal  farm  loan  act  (39 
Stat.,  360)  prescribes  that  first  mortgage  security  must  be  obtained 
■  for  all  loans  approved  thereunder.  (But  the  irrigation  district  is 
an  assistance  to  securing  Federal  loans  where  land  patents  antedate 
the  act  of  1912.    See  infra,  p.  64.) 

A  measure  to  relieve  lands  from  the  reservation  of  lien,  so  em- 
bodied in  the  patent,  where  a  contract  is  made  between  the  United 
States  and  an  irrigation  district  for  the  payment  of  all  char<res  to 
become  due  from  the  lands  in  question,  was  introduced  as  House 
resolution  4954  by  Representative  John  E.  Raker,  of  California,  in 
the  first  session  of  the  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  and  was  defeated  in  the 
House  on  January  23,  1918.  The  irrigation  district  and  the  type  of 
security  obtained  by  contract  with  these  corporations  presented 
novelties  to  members  from  nonirrigation  States,  and  in  view  of  the 
limits  upon  the  consideration  which  coidd  be  devoted  to  the  matter 
during  debate  and  the  lack  of  full  understanding,  the  action  taken 
was  entirely  comprehensible. 

1  So  named  for  Representative  Addison  T.  Smitli  tlie  author    (act  of  Aug.  11,  1916). 


26  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

This  measure,  or  similar  legislation  slionld  be  enacted  to  the  end 
that  without  impairing  the  security  of  the  United  States,  the  loaning 
of  money  at  low  rates  of  interest  may  be  legalized  in  favor  of  entry- 
men  upon  public  lands  of  reclamation  projects,  and  entrymen  who 
have  obtained  patent  encumbered  under  the  act  of  1912,  as  well  as 
for  those  upon  the  private  lands  of  the  same  projects  and  other 
rural  lands  of  the  United  States. 

Additional  information  relative  to  the  objects  sought  to  be  secured 
by  the  Eaker  bill  will  be  found  in  the  hearings  on  H.  K.  262  before 
the  Committe  on  Irrigation  of  Ariel  Lands,  House  of  Representa- 
tives, Sixty-fourth  Congress,  dated  February  26,  1916,  and  in  the 
favorable  report  of  the  same  committee  upon  the  bill,  which  as  rein- 
troduced was  H.  R.  4954,  being  House  Report  No.  93,  Sixty-fifth 
Congress,  first  session.  These  publications  contain  statements  by 
Mr.  B.  E.  Stoutemyer,  district  counsel  of  the  Federal  Reclamation 
Service ;  Mr.  J.  M.  Thompson,  of  the  Idaho  bar ;  and  by  the  writers 
of  the  present  discussion.^ 

Drainage  by  Irrigation  Districts. 

Drainage  an  irrigation  necessity. — It  is  little  understood  in  the 
humid  parts  of  the  country  that  in  regions  naturally  desert  the  rise 
of  seepage  waters  consequent  upon  irrigation  is  a  serious  menace. 
In  very  many  cases  not  even  economical  irrigation,  and  the  use  of 
what  is  known  as  a  "  high  duty  of  water  "  will  prove  efficacious,  al- 
though they  will  delay  and  lessen  the  problem.  Only  projects  hav- 
ing favorable  conditions  of  soil  and  topography  altogether  escape 
the  evils  of  seepage  and  alkali. 

An  irrigation  project,  therefore,  after  having  gone  through  its 
primary  construction  stage,  is  quite  likely  to  encounter  other  needs, 
and  often  must  assume  new  burdens  before  the  indebtedness  for 
the  construction  of  the  original  works  has  been  discharged.  The 
time  or  extent  of  such  drainage  necessities  is  an  engineering  problem 
impossible  to  determine  in  advance. 

Supply  atul  drainage  systems  equally  imgation  works. — Without 
the  drainage  works  in  cases  where  seepage  and  alkali  rise  the  irriga- 
tion project  fails,  and  the  outcome  may  be  far  worse  than  if  the  land 
had  remained  arid.  The  drainage  works  are  therefore  as  essential 
to  the  continued  irrigation  of  these  projects  as  is  the  supply  system, 
and  the  supply  and  drainage  systems  constitute  interdependent  parts 
of  the  project  works,  the  drainage  system  properly  falling  within  the 
term  "  irrigation  works." 

The  necessity  unity  of  the  supply  and  drainage  system  has  been 
recognized  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Idaho: 

The  dominant  imrpose  of  onr  irrigation  district  law  is  to  facilitate  the 
economical  and  permanent  reclamation  of  our  arid  lands,  and  it  must  be  the 
constant  aim  of  judicial  construction  to  effectuate  that  purpose  so  far  as 
consistent  with  the  whole  body  of  our  law.  The  continued  existence  of  an 
irrigation  district  depends  upon  its  ability  to  furnish  water  to  land  owners 
within  the  district.  The  stability  and  efficiency  of  the  district  as  a  quasi 
numicipal  corporation  also  depends  upon  the  power  to  construct  proper  drain- 
age within  its  limits.  In  the  absence  of  either  the  right  to  furnish  an  adequate 
water  supply  or  to  construct  an  effective  drainage  system,   the  very  purpose 

'  See  also  :  Discussion  by  chief  counsel,  U.  S.  Reclamation  Service,  copied  in  Report 
Arid  Land.*?  Committee  of  the  House  (Part  2),  Sept.  18-19,  1919,  and  reported  in  De- 
comber,  1919,  issue  of  Reclamation  Record. 


DRAINAGE  BY  IRRIGATION   DISTRICTS.  27 

aiul  object  of  the  district  would  be  thwarted,  and  the  growtli  and  development 
of  (he  State  retarded  to  its  serious  detriment.  (Nampa  and  Mei'idiaii  Irr.  Dist. 
r.  Petrie,  153  Pac,  425,  429;  2S  Idalio  (1915),  227.) 

ExfeHences  of  the  Federal  service  in  drainage. — When  the  recla- 
mation act  was  passed,  considerable  doubt  was  entertained  whether 
the  congressional  authority  to  construct  irrigation  works  went  to 
the  extent  of  the  building  of  drainage  systems.  The  logic  of  the 
situation  compelled  the  adoption  of  the  theory'  that  drainage  works 
are  a  necessity  and  are  as  truly  irrigation  works  as  storage  reser- 
voirs or  carriage  canals.  Drainage  works  upon  certain  projects  were 
built  as  early  as  1905  and  simultaneously  with  the  suj)ply  s3'stems. 
Upon  other  projects,  however,  construction  of  a  drainage  system 
was  not  deemed  advisable,  either  in  the  hope  that  seepage  waters 
woidd  not  rise  or  in  the  belief  that  the  financial  burden  of  the  con- 
struction of  the  original  works  coidd  be  met  first  and  the  drainage 
system  biult  later  when  a  second  financial  burden  coidd  be  more 
readily  carried. 

The  time  for  repayment  to  the  United  States  was,  however,  in- 
creased to  a  period  of  20  years  following  the  passage  of  the  reclama- 
tion extension  act  of  August  13,  1914  (38  Stat.,  686),  and  the  in- 
vestment of  the  Government  upon  the  projects  has  proved  of  greater 
duration,  and  drainage  now  occupies  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  affairs 
of  various  projects.  Drainage  has  occasioned  a  large  increase  of  cost 
to  several  projects;  and  some  of  those  to  which  we  have  previously 
referred,  including  the  Elephant  Butte  irrigation  district  and  the 
El  Paso  County  water  improvement  district  No.  1  on  the  Xew  Mexico 
and  Texas  portions  of  the  Rio  Grande  project,  and  the  Xewlands 
irrigation  district  in  Nevada,  have  organized  as  irrigation  districts, 
largely  with  the  motive  of  facilitating  cooperation  with  the  United 
States  in  drainage  construction. 

Recognition  hy  Congress. — The  view  that  the  reclamation  act 
sanctioned  expenditures  for  drainage  as  part  of  the  irrigation  works 
expressly  authorized  by  that  act  has  been  fully  sustained  by  Con- 
gress in  the  annual  appropriations  which  have  been  made  for  the 
construction  of  drainage  works.  For  example,  in  an  appropriation 
made  for  the  Eio  Grande  j^roject,  the  necessity  for  such  works  was 
recognized  and  the  creation  of  an  irrigation  district  was  required 
as  a  prerequisite  to  expenditure  therefor. 

To  quote  from  the  sundry  civil  act  the  clause  appropriating  for 
the  Rio  Grande  project  in  New  Mexico  and  Texas : 

For  maintenance,  operation,  continuation  of  construction,  and  incidental 
operations,  $648,000,  together  with  the  unexpended  bahmce  of  the  sum  appro- 
priated for  this  project  for  the  fiscal  year  nineteen  hundred  and  seventeen :  Pro- 
vided, That  no  part  of  this  appropriation  shall  be  expended  for  drainage  except 
in  irrigation  districts  formed  under  State  laws  and  upon  the  execution  of 
agreements  for  the  repayments  to  the  United  States  of  all  project  investments. 
(Act  approved  June  12,  1917,  40  Stat.,  148.) 

Drainage  distHct  statutes. — Drainage  necessities,  coming  later 
than  the  construction  of  the  supply  s^'stems,  have  received  far  less  de- 
velopment in  the  irrigation  laws  of  the  Western  States.  In  fact,  for 
many  years  legislatures  were  much  inclined  to  regard  drainage  prob- 
lems as  in  a  sense  distinct  from  those  of  irrigation.  Drainage  dis- 
trict laws  similar  to  those  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  and  the  Eastern 
States  have  been  enacted  in  the  West.  These  in  the  main  provide 
machinery  different  from  that  under  irrigation  district  laws  as  to 


28  ha:ndbook  of  irrigation  district  laws. 

making  of  assessments,  and  are  distinct  in  other  respects.  These 
laws  have  been  employed  both  for  the  reclamation  of  lands  the 
marshy  or  overflowed  condition  of  which  is  natural  and  for  reclama- 
tion from  seepage  caused  by  the  artificial  application  of  water.  It 
should  not  be  necessary,  however,  to  employ  the  drainage  district  in 
the  latter  class  of  cases,  and  in  the  former  class  only  when  the  lands 
reclaimed  are  not  later  to  require  irrigation. 

Irrigation  district  should  he  used,  for  drainage. — The  irrigation 
district  is  preferable  as  a  means  for  providing  and  maintaining 
drainage  upon  irrigation  projects,  being  an  organization  designed 
not  only  to  forestall  or  remedy  unfortunate  conditions,  but  also  to 
build  and  perpetually  to  manage  the  water  supply  system  which  must 
constitute  the  vital  and  permanent  adjunct  to  agi-iculture,  provided,  of 
course,  that  the  controlling  irrigation  district  act  is  sufficiently  elastic. 

The  usual  type  of  drainage  district  where  formed  upon  an  irriga- 
tion project  constitutes  a  second  organization  operating  and  main- 
taining its  system  of  drainage  structures  and  keeping  up  an  organiza- 
tion which  parallels  and  partially  duplicates  the  labors  of  the  or- 
ganization delivering  water  to  the  same  land  for  irrigation. 

In  California  where  there  are  great  areas  in  the  Sacramento  and 
San  Joaquin  Valleys  requiring  drainage,  as  well  as  the  most  im- 
portant irrigation  interests  of  any  Western  State,  the  essential  unity 
of  drainage  and  irrigation  work  is  recognized  and,  in  the  act  styled 
the  "  California  irrigation  act,"  approved  June  4, 1915  (Laws  of  1915, 
ch.  621,  p.  1173),  as  amended  in  1917  (Laws  of  1917,  ch.  646,  p.  1068), 
provision  is  made  in  comprehensive  fashion  for  the  "  reclamation  of 
swamp  or  overflowed  land,"  and  for  the  charging  of  the  benefits  for 
the  drainage  (see  sec.  7)  and  for  the  irrigation  of  the  land  when 
drained.  The  act  also  authorizes  the  creation  of  conservation  and 
irrigation  districts,  and  for  "  the  conversion  of  irrigation  districts, 
reclamation  districts,  drainage  districts,  and  other  political  subdivi- 
sions of  the  State,  organized  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  irrigation, 
reclamation  and  drainage,  into  irrigation  districts  under  this 
act     *     *     *." 

The  supervision  of  the  districts  formed  for  these  various  pur- 
poses or  for  a  combination  of  such  purposes  was  placed  in  charge  of 
the  California  Irrigation  Board,  created  by  the  same  act.  A  discus- 
sion of  the  California  act  is  not  feasible  within  the  limits  of  the 
present  undertaking,  but  legivslators  may  well  give  careful  attention  to 
what  California  has  attempted  in  the  acts  of  1915  and  1917  when  it  is 
desired  to  combine  drainage  and  irrigation  enterprises  under  one  law. 

From  the  discussion  to  follow  of  the  provisions  relating  to  drainage 
in  the  various  States,  it  may  be  noted  that  several  make  provision 
in  general  terms  for  drainage  by  irrigation  districts  of  the  ordinary 
type.  Others  provide  that  drainage  works  may  be  covered  by  con- 
tract Avith  the  United  States  u])on  such  projects  as  are  undertaken  or 
assisted  by  the  Federal  Government,  but  are  silent  as  to  drainage  by 
districts  not  cooperating  with  the  United  States.  The  irrigation  dis- 
trict laws  of  several  other  States,  however,  make  no  reference  what- 
ever to  drainage. 

Doctrine  of  Idaho  courts. — Among  the  last  is  Idaho.  Although 
the  legislature  has  made  no  reference  to  this  important  part  of  the 
work  in  the  irrigation  district  statutes,  the  Idaho  supreme  court 
holds  that  necessary  drainage  works  upon  an  irrigation  project  are 


DRAINAGE  BY  IRRIGATION   DISTRICTS.  29 

to  be  deemed  "  irrit^atioii  works  "  equally  with  the  construction  of 
reservoirs  and  carrying  canals. 

The  first  case  in  Idaho  bearing  upon  this  subject  is  that  of  Bissett 
V.  Pioneer  Irrigation  Dist.  (120  Pac.  461;  21  Idaho.  98).  decided  in 
1912: 

If,  ill  the  coui-se  of  ixTfonuiiii;-  tliis  work  [i.  c,  i)rocui-iiif,'  ;i  water  .supply] 
seepage  and  percolatiiiy  \\aters  from  the  canal  system  flood  and  overflow  tlie 
lowlands  of  landowners  within  the  district,  the  district  is  certainly  under  an 
obligation  to  take  care  of  such  seepage  or  overflow  and  protect  such  lands 
(Stuart  V.  Noble  Ditch  Co.,  !)  Iihiho,  TCm  :  K!  Tac,  2.V»)  ;  and  it  would  seem  that 
the  district  would  have  the  im|»lied  power  to  take  such  steps  as  would  be  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  protect  landowners  from  damage  or  the  loss  of  the  use  of  their 
lands.      (Id.,  p.  401.) 

The  views  thus  outlined  were  in  the  luiture  of  dicta,  and  were  later 
adopted  by  the  (ourt  as  will  l^e  noted  from  the  following: 

Upon  the  question  of  whether  or  not  an  irrigation  disti-ict  has  "a  right  to 
pi-ovide  means  and  exjiend  money  for  the  drainage  of  overflowed  lands  within 
the  district,  this  court,  in  the  case  of  Bissett  v.  Pioneer  Irrigation  District  (21 
Idaho,  98;  120  Pac,  461 ),  expressed  the  opinion  that  such  action  might  be  taken. 
While  the  views  there  expressed  were  not  essential  to  the  determination  of  that 
case,  a  further  investigation  of  the  question  convinces  us  of  the  correctness  of 
the  inqtressions  the  court  then  had  on  the  suh.i(>ct.  and  we  adopt  the  views 
therein  expressed  as  the  opinion  of  the  court  and  hold  that  an  irrigation  district 
possesses  the  powers  necessary  to  drain  its  overflowed  lands  and  to  protect  its 
landowners  from  seepage  and  overflow  waters  as  well  as  to  supply  water  to  the 
dry  and  arid  lands  of  the  district.  (Pioneer  Irrigation  District  v.  Stone.  130 
Pac,  382,  383 ;  23  Idaho,  344,  1913. ) 

The  same  doctrine  has  been  put  into  further  practice  in  the  cases 
of  Colburn  v.  Wilson  (132  Pac,  579;  2-t  Idaho  (1913)  104),  wherein 
it  was  declared  that  the  district  lands  nuist  be  considered  as  a  Avhole 
and  that  all  lands  must  be  assessed  for  benefits  for  the  improvement 
and  maintenance  of  drainage  work,  and  Xampa  and  ^Meridian  Irr. 
Dist.  V.  Petrie  (153  Pac,  425,  429:  28  Idaho,  227).  The  view  which 
the  Idaho  courts  and  the  Federal  Heclanuition  Service  have  adopted, 
namely,  that  statutory  authority  to  construct  irrigation  works  covers 
equally  drainage  works  necessary  to  an  irrigation  project  may  well 
be  followed  in  the  inter})retation  of  irrigation  district  laws  through- 
out the  west.  This  doctrine  is  more  obviously,  but  probably  not 
more  truly,  applicable  where  the  supply  and  drainage  works  are 
constructed  simultaneously  as  comixtnent  means  to  irrigation  than 
where  the  drainage  works  are  undertaken  long  after  the  supply 
system. 

The  excavation  of  supply  ditches  generally  precedes  the  develop- 
ment of  farms  to  be  served,  whereas  similar  construction  work  for 
drainage  ditches  as  a  rule  follows  the  cultivation  of  the  soil.  Hence 
the  award  of  damages  is  a  much  more  important  matter  in  the  latter 
case  than  in  the  former,  the  losses  being  very  unequally  distributed 
among  the  landowners.  This  circumstance  should  receive  more  care- 
ful consideration  than  it  has  been  given  in  the  States  where  merely 
general  authority  to  provide  drainage  is  conferred  upon  irrigation 
districts. 

In  Xew  Mexico,  where  the  ordinary  assessments  are  fixed  by  the 
irrigation  district  statute  on  a  per-acre  basis,  a  special  provision  was 
made  in  1917  for  the  award  of  damages  and  the  assessment  of  benefits 
for  drainage. 

*  See  discussion  .at  p.  54  below  as  to  basis  for  assessments. 


30  HATTOBOOK  OF  irrigatio:n'  district  laws. 

J\Iay  high  lands  he  assessed  for  drainage  of  low  lands? — Another 
question  vital  in  drainage  affairs  on  irrigation  projects,  however 
they  may  be  organized,  is  the  assessment  of  high  lands.  The  drain- 
age laws  of  arid  and  semiarid  States  are  often  based  upon  the  situa- 
tion applicable  in  humid  regions  where  the  need  for  drainage  is 
almost  solely  due  to  natural  conditions  of  elevation,  soil,  and  topog- 
raphy. 

The  u]jper  lands,  doubtless,  contribute  to  the  swamp  and  over- 
flowed condition  of  the  lower  lands  through  the  processes  of  nature, 
and  so  long  as  the  owner  does  not,  by  changing  natural  conditions  as 
regards  surface  and  percolating  waters,  violate  the  rule  of  morals 
and  of  law  that  a  man  must  so  use  his  OAvn  as  not  to  injure  that  of 
another,  neither  moral  nor  legal  responsibility  will  be  entailed  by 
the  upper  owner  in  favor  of  the  lower. 

The  cost  of  drainage  in  humid  regions,  therefore,  may  be  assessed 
with  entire  propriety  and  justice  in  pi'oportion  to  the  enhancement 
of  the  market  value  of  the  tracts  to  be  drained  as  such  value  is 
ordinarily  defined. 

In  irrigated  countries,  however,  the  most  important  drainage  prob- 
lems ai'e  the  result  of  irrigation,  the  ground  water  and  alkali  rising 
on  the  lower  lands  largely  as  the  result  of  the  irrigation  practiced 
on  farms  in  the  vicinity  having  higher  elevation. 

This  artificial  situation  fundamentally  modifies  the  equities  and 
renders  the  principle  of  benefit  based  on  cnliancement  of  a  strict 
present  mai'ket  value  unsound  in  all  cases  of  drainage  incidental  to 
irrigation.  The  situation  calls  for  some  rule  of  assessment  which 
will  recognize  the  physical  unity  of  the  drainage  area,  and  the  par- 
tial responsibility  of  the  owners  of  higher  lands  for  the  drainage 
difficulties,  to  wit,  a  broader  rule  of  benefit. 

Furthermore,  proper  assessment  is  sometimes  a  necessary  condi- 
tion to  the  continued  cultivation  of  considerable  areas,  for  if  the 
lower  lands  are  to  be  assessed  for  the  entire  cost  of  drainage,  those 
which  are  water  logged  sometimes  become  chargeable  with  more 
than  the  lands  will  stand  as  a  practical  farming  proposition,  and 
thus  valuable  property  may  l)e  lost,  and  the  ])rotection  of  lands  not 
so  greatly  damaged  and  the  security  of  the  creditors  of  the  district 
may  be  jeopardized. 

It  is,  therefore,  exceedingly  important  that  legislatures  and  courts 
develop  a  body  of  law  whereby  the  cost  of  drainage  shall  be  assessed 
etjuitably  and  in  practical  fashion. 

Idaho  charging  high  lands. — The  State  of  Idaho  appears  to  have 
solved  the  ])roblem  for  that  State.  The  drainage  district  law  passed 
in  1918  (Idaho  L.  1913,  ch.  16,  p.  58)  was  amended  at  the  next  ses- 
sion (L.  1915,  ch.  42,  p.  123)  by  the  addition  of  the  following  sec- 
tion: 

Skc.  Oa.  In  detcnnining  the  anuiunt  which  each  tract  of  land  will  be  bene- 
fited by  sucli  pr()i)()sed  drainage  system  the  commissioners  shall  consider  the 
damase  done  to  low  land  from  seepage  and  saturation  l)y  irrigation  water 
from  high  land,  and  the  necessity  for  the  carrying  off  of  waste  water,  and  such 
high  lands  shall  be  considered  as  being  benefited  to  the  extent  and  in  the 
amount  that  such  lands  are  responsible  for  damage  to  low  lands  fronr  seepage 
and  saturation  by  irrigation  water. 

The  supreme  court  of  the  State  has  strongly  upheld  the  statutory 
provision  above  quoted  in  the  cases  mentioned  below.     The  require- 


DRAIISrAGE   BY  IREIGATION   DISTRICTS.  31 

ment  that  lands  responsible  for  tlie  damage  shall  be  deemed  bene- 
fited is  declared  valid,  upon  the  ground  that  the  former  common-law 
rule  recognized  the  responsibility  of  upper  OAA'ners,  and  that  jt  is 
competent  for  legislatures  to  revive  the  earlier  doctrine. 

The  doctrines  of  these  cases  are  of  so  great  importance  to  many 
sections  that  we  venture  to  make  unusually  full  quotations,  the  italics 
used  being  ours : 

The  English  common  kiw  as  well  as  the  early  American  rule  was  to  the  effect 
that  any  person  who  conveyed  or  accumulated  water  upon  his  land  by  artificial 
means  did  so  at  his  peril,  and  if  any  water  should  escape  by  means  of  seepage, 
and  damage  result,  liability  therefor  was  conclusively  presumed.  During  the 
years  of  the  development  of  irrigation  in  the  western  country,  the  courts,  with 
the  desire,  evidently,  of  lending  every  encouragement  to  the  reclamation  of  arid 
lands,  required  proof  of  negligence  in  the  construction  of  canals  before  permit- 
ting the  recovery  of  damages  from  seepage.     *     *     * 

It  seems  in  this  irrigated  country  the  question  of  drainage  is  now  confront- 
ing almost  every  irrigated  section,  and  there  seems  very  cogent  reasons  for  a 
return  to  the  formei"  rule  above  stated,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  assessing  lands 
for  the  construction  of  a  drainage  system  from  which  seepage  or  percolation 
damages  or  injures  other  lands.  The  early  settlers  of  the  arid  regions  were  not 
confronted  \vith  the  question  of  drainage,  but  time  and  experience  have  proven 
that  a  drainage  system  is  absolutely  necessary  where  large  areas  of  desert  land 
are  reclaimed  by  irrigation.     *     *     * 

It  is  a  well-recognized  rule  of  law  that  an  owner  of  property  ought  not  to 
be  permitted  to  use  it  to  the  injury  of  the  property  of  anotlier,  but  recognizing 
that  tltcre  are  some  injuries  which  result  in  damages  for  ivhich  compensation 
can  not  6e  recovered  in  an  action  in  court,  we  are  satisfied  that  the  legislature 
has  full  authority  under  the  Constitution  to  provide  for  assessments  and  make 
all  property  subject  to  such  assessments  that  Is  physically  responsible  for  dam- 
ages that  result  from,  acts  for  which  no  legal  responsibility  under  an  action  to 
recover  damages  attaches,  and  that  the  legislature  has  done  so  under  and  by 
virtue  of  the  drainage  laws  enacted  by  it.     *     *     * 

It  is  clearly  the  policy  of  the  State  to  have  the  great  irrigation  schemes  of  the 
State  so  conducted  as  not  to  ruin  thousands  of  acres  of  line  agricultural  land 
and  bankrupt  the  owners  and  leave  them  remediless.  (In  re  Drainage  Dist. 
No.  1  of  Canyon  County,  161  Pac,  315,  320,  321;  29  Idaho    (1916),  393,  395.) 

The  importance  of  the  above-quoted  views  Avas  materially  de- 
creased after  rehearing  (161  Pac,  321,  323)  ;  but  was  thoroughly 
reestablished  by  the  later  case  of  Burt  et  al  Drainage  Commissioners 
V.  Farmers  Coop.  Irr.  Co.  (168  Pac,  1078;  30  Idaho  (1917),  752).; 
The  court,  after  quoting  from  the  former  case,  declared : 

By  section  9a  the  purpose  was  to  require  lands  on  higher  levels,  on  which  irri-, 
gation  water  might  l)e  brought  by  artiflcial  means,  and  which  contributed  to  the 
swampy  condition  of  lower  lands  by  seepage  and  the  percolation  of  water 
through  the  soil,  to  be  assessed  in  a  just  amount  for  the  construction  of  drainage 
works  for  the  reclamation  of  such  lower  land.  It  is  jirohable  that  the  legisla- 
ture M'as  not  considering  the  question  of  legal  liability  for  damages  at  the  suit 
of  private  individuals,  and  certainly  it  was  not  considering  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  seepage  and  percolation  was  diie  to  negligence  of  the  person  bring- 
ing irrigation  water  upon  the  higher  lands.  By  section  9a  it  is  provided  that 
such  high  land  shall  be  considered  as  being  "  benefited  "  to  the  extent  and  in 
the  amount  such  lands  are  responsible  for  damages  to  low  lands  from  seepage 
and  saturation  by  irrigation  water.  We  have  no  doubt  of  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lature to  provide  that  lands  which  by  reason  of  artificial  irrigation  contribute 
by  seepage  and.  saturation  to  the  swampy  condition  of  loioer  lands  shall  con- 
tribute their  just  proportion  of  the  cost  of  the  construction  of  drainage  tvorks 
for  the  reclamation  of  such  lower  lands.     (Id.,  p.  1082.) 

This  rule  as  regards  the  assessment  of  high  lands  has  not  been  en- 
joined upon  irrigation  districts  by  the  Idaho  Legislature,  but  the 
force  of  circumstances  and  the  reasoning  which  has  l)ecn  adopted 
would  seem  to  impel  such  an  outcome,  either  as  the  result  of  judicial 


32  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

or  legislative  action.  The  irrigation  district,  being  a  corporation 
municipal  in  character  which  would  more  often  as  a  matter  of  local 
development  comprise  both  high  lands  and  low  is  certainly  fully  as 
appropi'iate  an  agency  for  the  taxing  of  the  entire  irrigation  project 
for  relief  against  seepage  as  is  the  drainage  district. 

Situation  in  other  States. — The  Idaho  doctrines  have  been  dwelt 
upon  fully  for  the  reason  that  they  are  deemed  to  point  the  way 
toward  a  solution  of  a  question  exceedingly  vexing  in  almost  every 
section  where  irrigation  is  practiced.  Reforms  can  not  be  made 
without  the  coopei-ation  of  both  legislature  and  courts,  but  it  seems 
to  be  evident  that  the  relief  is  susceptible  of  being  worked  out  so 
as  to  save  large  areas  of  valuable  lands  witliout  undue  discrimination. 

The  problems  of  seepage  and  percolating  waters  are  among  the 
most  difficult  in  engineering  and  local  operations  as  well  as  in  law, 
on  account  of  the  lack  of  exact  knowledge  of  the  causes  and  effects 
which  influence  the  course  of  water  beneath  the*  surface  of  the 
ground.  Nevertheless,  general  justice  may  be  reached  in  the  appor- 
tionment of  the  costs  of  drainage  upon  the  basis  of  responsibility 
outlined  in  the  above-quoted  decisions,  which  will  about  as  closely 
approximate  the  ideal  as  is  attained  in  most  human  relations.  The 
duty  devolving  upon  boards  havmg  the  assessments  in  hand  is  of 
course  a  difficult  one,  but  the  difficulties  are  not  insurmountable.^ 

The  supposed  unwillingness  on  the  part  of  owners  of  higher  lands 
to  sustain  their  share  of  the  drainage  costs  is  unduly  emphasized  in 
the  minds  of  many.  With  the  means  provided  by  which  the  upper 
owners  in  a  mass  will  be  brought  in,  the  district  is  enabled  in  most 
localities  to  receive  the  support  of  a  sufficient  proportion  of  the  iarm- 
ers  enjoying  higher  elevations  to  assure  the  cooperation  necessary  to 
obtain  success.  The  removal  of  unsightly  and  insect-breeding  marsh 
and  tule  lands  and  freedom  from  the  fear  that  the  seepage  may  rise 
eventually  to  higher  elevations,  together  with  local  pride  and  com- 
munity spirit,  and  the  settled  fact  that  the  irrigation  of  the  higher 
lands,  by  which  their  farming  is  made  practicable,  contribute 
more  than  their  proportionate  share  to  conditions  making  the  drain- 
age necessary,  are  certainly  arguments  which  appeal  to  all  public- 
spirited  farmers,  even  though  the  present  loss  of  crops  may  not  exist 
as  an  argument  with  those  more  fortunately  situated. 

There  is  sufficient  statutory  basis  in  most  of  the  Western  States 
for  a  declaration  in  harmony  with  the  views  of  the  Idaho  Supreme 
Court  that  drainage  woiks  needed  for  irrigation  projects  may  be  con- 
structed by  irrigation  districts.  But  the  present  status  of  the  irriga- 
tion district  law  is  not  such  as  to  make  it  safe  to  predict  what  view 
will  be  taken  by  the  courts  as  to  the  assessment  of  the  higher  lands 
not  directly  menaced  by  seepage  for  the  drainage  of  the  district  as  a 
whole.  The  Idaho  decisions  and  the  drainage  district  provision  rep- 
resent advanced  judicial  and  legislative  thinking  but  are  likely  to  be 
followed  in  other  States,  since  the  problem  is  an  urgent  one  and  uni- 
form in  its  main  features  throughout  the  irrigated  belt. 

SecMTity  against  future  seepage  losses. — No  means  has  been  devised 
whereby  a  district  can  enter  into  a  contingent  liability  for  the  pro- 
tection of  creditors  to  the  end  that  if  and  when  seepage  difficulties 

'  The  extent  of  the  discretionary  power  devolving  upon  boards  of  directors  in  this  matter 
Is  outlined  below   (p.  62). 


IXDEBTEDXESS   OF   IKPaGATIOX   DISTRICTS.  33 

may  arise  the  district  >vill  protect  the  bondholders  by  assuming  the 
necessary  del)t  and  1)}^  the  construction  of  an  adequate  drainage 
system. 

Persons  loaning  to  the  owners  of  irrigated  lands  upon  long-time 
security,  Avhatever  the  form  of  irrigation  organization  may  be,  where 
irrigation  has  not  been  ])racticod  long  enough  to  show  that  artificial 
drainage  Avill  not  be  required  should  ascertain  not  only  the  usual 
facts  but  also  the  existence  of  the  necessary  topographic  conditions 
for  the  construction  of  drainage  works. 

Creditors  imqiiestionably  have  n  sti'ong  element  of  security  in  the 
fact  that  the  landowiiers  unist  supph'  the  necessary  drainage  fa- 
cilities unless  they  are  prepared  to  lose  their  entire  property.  The 
persuasiveness  of  this  argument  of  self  interest  is,  of  course,  de- 
pendent upon  the  feasibility  of  drainage  and  uixui  the  existence  of 
a  reasonable  margin  between  the  \aliie  of  the  land  and  the  existing 
indebtedness.  When  seepage  troubles  arise  upon  a  project  where 
an  irrigation  district  with  powers  of  drainage  has  been  formed  the 
solution  of  some  of  the  mos^t  important  of  the  usual  difficulties  has 
been  provided  in  advance.  The  ability  to  cooj^erate  has  been  lo- 
calAy  recognized  and  developed,  tlie  vehicle  for  such  cooperation  as 
is  necessary  has  actually  been  tried  out,  and  sentiment  lias  ac- 
quiesced in  its  machinery  for  collection  and  operation.  Thus  the 
risk  of  divided  counsel  antl  of  local  disunion,  which  is  the  ])rincipal 
cause  of  irrigated  sections  being  ruined  by  seepage,  is  eliminated 
in  advance  wherever  the  irrigation  district  has  been  formed  upon  a 
project. 

Therefore,  the  creditors  loaning  upon  lands  within  an  irrigation 
district  have  a  strong  moral  security  which  is  absent  in  the  case  of 
any  irrigated  section  not  organized  as  a  public  or  quasi-municipal 
corporation.  Moreover,  the  soundness  of  the  doctrine  developed  by 
the  Idaho  courts  that  irrigation  districts  are  not  only  authorized  to 
provide  drainage  for  district  lands  when  the  need  arises,  but  that  thej^ 
are  under  a  duty  to  do  so.  is  practically  certain  to  meet  with  the  early 
and  increasing  favor  of  the  other  States.^ 

Indebtedness  of  Irrigation  Districts. 

An  irrigation  district  is  a  creature  of  statute,  and  as  such  is  lim- 
ited in  its  powers  by  the  act  under  which  it  is  brought  into  being. 
We  quote  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  California  as  follows: 

An  irrigation  district  is  a  public  body,  and  undor  llie  Wri.slit  law  has  only 
such  powei's  as  are  given  to  it  by  that  act.  Such  powers  are  enumerated  in 
the  act.  "■■  *  *  From  the  foregoing  it  is  quite  api)areut  that  the  i)urpose 
of  the  Wright  Act  is  to  enable  an  irrigation  district  to  construct,  or  acquire 
by  purchase  or  condemnation,  or  by  all  of  said  methods  combined,  when 
necessary,  a  system  of  canals  and  waterworks  wliich  shall  be  rhe  property  of 
the  district  and  under  its  control ;  that  the  board  of  directors  have  power 
to  acquire  such  waterworks  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  and  to  issue  the  bonds 
of  the  district  in  payment  therefor ;  and  that  the  board  has  no  other  powera 
except  those  which  are  expressly  given  or  ai'e  implied  as  necessary  to  carry 
out  the  main  purpose  of  the  act.  (Stimson  v.  Alexaudro  Irr.  Dist.,  G7  Pac, 
496,  497,  498;  135  Calif.,  389.) 

1  The  reader  may  be  interested  in  discussion  of  drainage  problems  below,  pp.  •T.'?.  72,  80. 
160047—20 3 


34  HANDBOOK    OF    IRRIGATION    DISTRICT   LAWS. 

Further  eniphnsizino-  the  limited  character  of  the  powers  to  be 
exercised  b^^  irrigation  districts  the  orioinal  Wright  Act  of  Cali- 
fornia  contained,   in  section  42,  the   following  provision : 

The  iMiard  of  directors  or  other  otHeers  of  the  district  sliall  liave  no  power 
to  iuctir  any  debt  or  liability  ^vhatever,  either  by  issuing-  bonds  or  otherwise,  in 
excess  of  the  express  pi-ovisions  of  this  act,  and  any  debt  or  lialtility  incurred, 
in  excess  of  sncii  express  i)rovisions,  shall  be  and  remain  alisolutely  void. 

While  such  would  probably  be  the  doctrine  of  the  courts,  irre- 
spective of  statutory  declaration,  the  clause  above  quoted  has  many 
times  been  referred  to  by  the  courts.  This  jn'ovision  has  been  adopted, 
generally  verbatim,  by  practically  all  of  the  irrigation  district  laws. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Nebraska  in  the  case  of  Paxton  Irr.  Dist.  v. 
Conway  (142  N.  W.,  797;  04  Xebr.,  205),  after  (juoting  this  provision, 
says:  "In  acquiring  bonds  apj^ellants  were  bound  by  this  statute  and 
were  required  to  respect  the  limitations  of  the  officers  of  the  irriga- 
tion district,"  and  this  was  held  to  be  the  case,  although  the  officers 
themselves  had  failed  in  this  instance  to  respect  the  limitations  of  the 
authority  conferred  upon  them. 

BONDED   DEBTS. 

The  principal  purpose  of  irrigation  tlistrict  organization  is  the 
construction  of  the  necessary  works  and,  aside  from  contract  with 
the  United  States  Government  for  the  financing  of  a  Federal  pro- 
ject, as  al)ove  described,  that  pui']:)ose  as  a  rule  can  only  be  carried 
out  by  means  of  the  authorization  and  issue  of  bonds.  Therefore, 
under  most  statutes  it  is  not  disci-etionary  but  incumbent  upon  the 
board  of  directors,  immediately  after  their  election,  to  prepare  plans 
and  estimates  for  construction  work. 

AMien  such  work  has  been  performed  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
board,  the  directors  nuist  call  an  election  to  decide  the  question 
whether  or  not  the  proposed  bonded  indebtedness  shall  be  incurred. 
Notice  of  election  is  required  to  be  given  in  a  manner  expressly  pre- 
scribed, generally  both  by  })ublication  in  local  newspapers  and  by 
posting  of  notices  in  the  various  election  precincts. 

As  in  the  case  of  other  proceedings  under  these  statutes,  the  au- 
thorization of  bonds  is  a  ])roceeding  in  rem.  so  that  jurisdiction  is 
secured  without  personal  service  by  compliance  merely  with  the 
statute  as  to  publication.  While  the  statutory  method  of  publication 
in  lieu  of  personal  notice  must  be  substantially  followed,  in  order 
that  the  election  may  be  valid,  numy  of  the  statutes  ex])ressly  provide 
that  informalities  in  the  matter  of  election  will  not  vitiate  the  result 
if  the  election  shall  have  been  otherwise  fairly  conducted.  Failure 
to  follow  the  law  as  to  the  giving  of  notice  is  not  to  be  deemed  an 
informality. 

The  nuijority  required  to  carry  the  bonds  differs  in  various  States 
from  a  bare  majority  to  two-thirds.  It  is  not  generally  necessary 
that  a  majority  of  all  qualified  electors  be  obtained,  but  merely  that 
a  majority  of  those  who  vote  favor  the  indebtedness.  But  in  New 
Mexico  there  must  be  cast  in  favor  of  the  bonds  a  majority  of  the 
votes  of  the  resident  freeholders  owning  in  the  aggregate  a  majority 
of  the  number  of  acres  held  by  such  freeholders. 

PurpoHcs  f 01'  which  hands  ni<iji  he  Issued. — The  purposes  for  whicli 
bonds  may  be  issued  differ  among  the  States;  in  several  the  construe- 


r 


BONDED   DEBTS.  35 

tioii  oi  acfjiii^ition  of  tlu'  lu'ccssary  woik^.  piopi'il y.  \v.\d  ii<ihts.  and 
payment  of  tlie  first  yeai's  interest  upon  the  bonds  are  the  objects 
prescribed.  Under  one  statute  the  purposes  are  the  "  construction 
reconstruction,  betterment,  extension,  or  acquisition  of  the  nec( 
sary  pi-operty  and  rii>'hts  therid'oi-.'"  The  licucral  phrase  "and 
otlierwise  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  ilii-  chapter*'  is  common, 
and  it  is  gencM-ally  provideil  that  "whenever  theieafter  the  fund  for 
any  sucli  ])uri)ose  has  been  exhausted  by.  or  shall  a])pear  to  l)e  imuh'- 
((iiate  to  mei't  the  expenditures  herein  aui hoi'i/iMl  therefrom"  the 
board  uuist  call  another  special  bond  election.  In  an  Oreo-on  case  it 
was  held  tiial  the  authoi'ity  to  issue  sul)sequent  bonds  where  not 
expressly  <ii\(«u  may  be  found  by  im])]icafion  fi-oiu  the  statute  as  a 
whole.  (Justice  Kin<i-  in  Hall  /'.  Hood  Ivi\er  Irr.  Dist.,  110  Pac, 
405;  T)!  ()i'e<:-..  (>!).)  Bonds  are  generally  authorized  to  be  deposited 
with  tlie  Ignited  States  as  security  tluit  the  contractual  ])lan  entered, 
into  with  the  Federal  Government  will  ])e  Avi])ed  out.' 

I>l.s-('u.s.<f>0}i  of  inildivfid  ptn/>os< s. — 'Jdie  provisions  of  law  as  to  the 
objects  for  which  bonds  may  be  issued  is  a  matter  of  great  im|)ort- 
ance.  The  bond  issue  can  not  be  employed  in  management  and 
salaries  oi-  othei-wise  diverted  from  the  objev-rs  of  the  statute,  to  (|uotft 
from  another  California  case: 

The  directors  liave  no  ;iiil  lioriTy  lo  ;i]ii)roiiriiite  tl'.e  bonds  whidi  Ibc  electors 
liave  voted  to  issue  for  tlic  construction  of  the  irrigation  worlds  to  the  i)nynient 
<»f  salaries  or  expenditures  incuired  in  the  nianii.uenient  of  the  itrojierty.  If, 
instead  of  sellins  the  honds,  as  directed  hy  section  16,  they  could  use  them  for 
these  purposes,  tiie  i)rovisions  of  section  41  Avould  he  futile:  iwa],  und(>i-  an 
iin)>rovident  oi-  i-eckless  hoard  of  directors,  the  honds  whicli  had  been  voted  for 
the  ])ui-pose  of  raisinji'  "money"  with  which  to  consiruct  a  canal,  mi.uht  he 
frirtored  away  in  useless  cxiuMiditures  and  salaries,  and  the  district  receive 
no  heueHt  whalevcr.      ( llimhson  /•.  Crane.  47  I'ac,  120.  122;  IIT)  Calif.,  404.) 

Certain  blocks  of  bonds  were  declared  in\  alid — • 

If  the  honds  wei'e  issued  to  him  in  violation  of  the  statute,  they  can  not  in 
his  hands  he  valid  ohliyations  ajiainst  the  distilct,  even  tliousb  tliey  were 
taken  in  payment  for  his  work.  The  law  is  well  settled  that  one  dealing  with 
a  uuuiicipal  cor]toration  is  cliar.ged  with  a  knowledge  of  all  the  linutations 
ui)on  the  iiower  of  its  olticers.  and  that  he  can  have  no  right  of  action  upon 
its  written  obligation  if  it  was  entered  into  in  <lisregard  of  statutory  re(|uire- 
luents.     (Id.,  p.  124.) 

In  the  case  of  Stim.son  /;.  Alesandro  Irr.  Dist.,  (jtioted  above,  cer- 
tain bonds  issued  to  purchase  certificates  as  evidence  of  the  right  to 
a  supply  of  water  to  be  acquired  by  the  irrigation  district  were  held 
void,  'rhe  language  of  the  act  having  stated  the  purposes  for  which 
bonds  may  be  used,  the  addition  to  the  stated  pin-po.ses  for  which 
bonds  ifiav  be  issued  of  the  words  "  and  otherwise  carrving  out  the 
provisions  of  this  act"  did  not  avail  to  validate  the  exchange.  It 
was  held  that  the  irrigation  district  "  in  return  for  its  bonds  never 
got  any  part  of  any  canal,  canals,  waterworks,  or  any  real  prop- 
erty or  any  tangible  property  wdiatever.  They  received  merely  the 
personal  promise  of  the  Bear  Creek  (^o.  to  lend  certain  water." 

It  was  furthermore  held  that  the  supjiosed  confirmation  of  thft 
bonds  would  not  avail  to  ^■alidate  the  transaction  since,  for  such  a 
transaction,  the  court  lacked  jurisdiction  to  validate  bonds. 

1  Tn  practice,  however,  the  anthorlty  to  <lepo.<?it  Iwnds  with  the  TTnitetl  States  has  lx>en 
iitilizod  in  the  case  of  onlv  foui-  dislricts.  aU  Iiciim  in  Wa.'<liiii!Jrton.  to  an  aggregate  of 
about   .f  1,000, 000. 


36  HAISTDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION'   DISTRICT  LAWS, 

A  similar  case  is  that  of  Leeman  v.  Perris  Irr.  Dist,.  wherein  an 
exchange  of  bonds  for  Avater-rioht  certificates  was  held  void,  the 
court  stating-  as  follows: 

To  depart  frf)in  the  expres>,  provision  of  the  act  mijjht  lead  to  mischievous 
consequences.  One  bi(Uler  miglit  l)e  willing  to  do  certain  construction  work  at 
a  certain  price  for  cash,  but  would  be  unwilling  to  take  bonds  at  any  value, 
while  another  competing  bidder  would  get  the  same  work  at  a  greater  price 
because  he  was  willing  to  take  the  Iwnds  in  payment  at  an  agreed  value.  There 
could  be  no  fair  competition  under  such  circumstances.  The  evident  intention 
of  the  act  is  that  bonds  must  be  sold  (except  in  the  single  instance  of  exchange 
for  property)  to  the  highest  Indder  in  open  market  for  cash,  and  that  construc- 
tion work  must  be  done  on  the  best  terms  for  cash.  One  who  purchases  bonds, 
knowing  that  they  were  negotiated  in  a  manner  not  authorized  by  law,  is  not 
a  bona  fide  holder,  but  takes  them  suliject  to  anv  defense  existing  against 
them.     (74  Pac.  24,  25;  140  Calif.,  540.) 

The  same  result  has  been  reached  by  the  circuit  court  of  appeals 
for  the  ninth  district  (in  1917)  in  the  case  of  Rialto  Irr.  Dist.  v. 
Stowell  (24-6  Fed,,  294),  an  exchange  of  bonds  therein  being  held 
invalid. 

That  an  exchange  of  bonds  may  be  valid,  however,  is  shown  by 
the  case  of  Stowell  v.  Rialto  Irr.' Dist.  (100  Pac,  248;  155  Calif., 
215).  It  is  therein  held  that  the  only  mode  in  which  the  board  can 
exercise  its  powers  in  the  disposal  of  the  bonds  so  as  to  render  them 
valid  obligations  of  the  district  under  the  California  act  (that  of 
1887  under  which  the  district  was  organized),  is  to  exchange  them 
for  property  at  their  full  value  or  to  sell  them  in  the  open  market 
at  not  less  than  90  per  cent  of  their  face  value.  The  distinction  be- 
tween this  case  and  the  preceding  cases  is  that  actual  property  was 
held  to  have  been  obtained  as  the  result  of  the  exchange. 

The  foregoing  cases  relate  to  the  rights  of  the  original  purchasers 
of  bonds  and  distinctly  except  the  rights  of  later  bona  fide  holders, 
and  it  is  evident  that  while  the  original  purchaser  is  charged  upon 
his  peril  to  make  sure  that  the  purpose  for  which  he  takes  the  bonds 
is  one  for  which  the  district  directors  have  the  power  to  utter  the 
security,  subsequent  purchasers  are  entitled  to  the  same  rights  as 
bona  "fide  purchase  of  other  negotiable  securities.  They  are  under 
no  obligation  to  assure  themselves  of  the  history  of  the  issuance  of 
the  bonds  or  of  the  lawful  character  of  the  consideration  given  there- 
for to  the  district.  If  the  bonds  are  authorized  by  the  law  and  exe- 
cuted in  accord  with  the  statute  they  are  protected.  That  this  doc- 
trine applies  in  cases  of  this  character  where  the  rights  of  a  bona  fide 
purchaser  are  involved  is  evident  from  the  case  of  Baxter  v.  Dickin- 
son, collector  of  Vineland  irrigation  district  (68  Pac,  GOl.  603; 
136  Calif..  185).  The  court  therein  quoted  from  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  the  following  passage : 

"  This  court  has  uniformly  held,  when  the  question  was  presented,  tliat 
Avhere  a  corporation  lias  lawful  power  to  issue  such  securities,  and  does  so,  the 
bona  fide  holder  has  a  right  to  presume  the  power  was  properly  exercised,  and 
is  not  bound  to  look  l)eyond  the  question  of  its  existence.  Where  the  bonds 
on  their  face  recite  the  circumstances  which  Ining  them  within  the  power, 
the  corporatiim  is  estopped  to  deny  the  truth  of  such  recital."  (Quoting  from 
Pompton  v.  Cooper  Union,  101  U.  S.,  196.) 

It  is  evident  that  the  statute  should  receive  the  most  careful  con- 
sideration, if  any  other  transaction  is  proposed  than  the  sale  of  the 
bonds  for  cash,  in  order  that  parties  may,  for  their  protection,  make 


BONDED   DEBTS.  37 

certain  tliiit  tlio  purpose  for  whi<li  the  bonds  are  to  hv  cniployod  is 
one  which  clearly  falls  within  the  i)iirview  of  the  statute. 

Fonn  of  hoiuJx. — The  statutes  <renerally  ]H'escribe  certain  recitals 
which  are  to  be  inserted  in  the  text  of  the  bonds,  particularly  with 
refei-ence  to  coin])liance  witli  the  statute.  These  i-ecitals  ai'e  very 
important,  since  they  are  conclusive  ui)on  the  district: 

If  the  recital  of  "  ftiU  conipliance  with  all  tlie  re<niii"enients  of  the  act"  lie 
held  for  naujiht,  then  it  must  neeossarily  follow  that,  notwithstfinclinff  the 
nesotialile  foi-ni  of  the  bonds  and  the  fad  thai  tith-'  tlnM-ero  passed  by  mere 
delivery,  no  valno  would  attach  to  them,  since  their  validity  would  always  be 
oi)en  to  contest  as  to  Ihe  Irulh  of  a  fact  that  the  nxist  dilifrent  inciuiry  mi.irht 
fail  to  disclose,  '^i'o  so  hold  would,  in  oui*  o])inioii.  not  only  lead  to  disastrous 
conseciuences  never  intended  by  the  leicislattire,  but  would  ren<ler  minatory  the 
provisifin  that  the  bonds  should  be  nefrotiable  in  form  and  also  destroy  the 
effect  of  the  recitals  i-ecpiired  to  be  ma(h'  therein.  *  *  *  Vesteil  with  this 
power  to  determine  wliat  constituted  "full  comi)liance  "  and  havin,:;  so  certified 
upon  the  face  of  the  lionds.  tlie  district  will  not  he  heard  as  airainst  a  liona 
fide  holder  of  bonds  without  notice  of  the  allest^d  irrejiularit.v  in  the  sale  there- 
of, to  say  that  the  facts  thus  solemnly  recited  and  ujion  which  he  innocently 
[larted  with  his  monev  are  false.  (Ham  r.  Grapeland  Trr.  Dist.,  loS  Pac,  207, 
211,  212;  172  ("alif.   (1916),  611.) 

The  statutes  prescribe  the  maximum  and  niinimuiu  denominations 
of  the  bonds,  and  require  that  they  be  neootiable  in  foi'm.  executed 
in  the  name  of  the  district  and  signed  bv  the  ])resident  and  secretary 
and  countersioned  by  the  treasurer.  The  seal  of  the  district  is  re- 
quired to  be  affixed  thereto,  and  the  bonds  are  to  be  numbered  con- 
secutively as  issued,  bearing-  date  at  the  time  of  their  issue.  Coupons 
for  the  interest  must  be  attached  to  each  bond  beariuij  the  sianatures 
of  the  president  and  secretary,  which  by  express  jirovision  in  some 
statutes  are  lithographed.  The  bonds  are  required  to  declare  upon 
their  face  that  they  are  issued  by  the  authority  of  the  irri.oation  dis- 
trict law.  stating  the  title  and  date  of  tlte  ajiproval  thereof.  The  sec- 
retary must  kee])  a  record  of  the  bonds  sold,  their  number,  date  of 
sale,  the  price  received,  and  the  name  of  the  purchaser. 

INIatters  of  form  and  execution  are  important,  as  may  be  seen  from 
the  following  quotation : 

The  power  of  puldio  corporations  to  issue  bonds  is  to  be  exi'i'cised  in  the 
iiiamier  prescribed  by  statute.  "There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  within  the 
power  of  a  v'^tate  to  jtrescribe  the  form  in  which  municijial  bonds  shall  be  exe- 
cuted in  order  to  bind  the  public  for  their  payment.  If  not  so  executed,  tliey 
create  no  legal  liabilitv."  Anthonv  r.  (^)unty  of  Jasper.  101  U.  S..  693;  2o  L. 
Ed..  100.").     (Stowell  r.  Kialto  Irr.  i>ist..  100  Pac,  24S.  251.  252;  155  Calif..  215.) 

T (■!'))}><  of  hotuh. — AAliilc  numerous  changes  have  been  made  in  the 
terms  imj^osed  for  the  piiyment  of  bonds,  the  most  common  clause 
provides  iPor  a  20-year  period,  during  11  years  of  which  no  part  of  the 
principal  stun  is  re])aid.  At  the  exjiiiiition  of  the  eleventh  yeai"  not 
less  than  5  per  cent  of  the  princijial  of  the  whole  amount  iind  number 
of  bonds  is  reipiired  to  be  ])aid,  and  yearly  i^ayments  on  the  jirincipal 
are  made  thereafter  at  a  gradually  increasing  rate,  which  reaches  15 
per  cent  for  the  nineteenth  year.  The  balance,  if  any,  is  i>aid  at  the 
close  of  the  twentieth  year.  Thus  the  auntuil  interest  burden  each 
year  after  the  eleventh  lessens  while  the  amotint  of  the  princijial  re- 
quired to  be  met  increases.    The  terms  of  repayment  are  mandatory: 

Where  the  statute  has  fixed  the  term  for  which  bonds  shall  run.  bonds  in 
which  iiavment  is  undertaken  at  the  expiration  of  either  a  .sht)rter  (People's 
Baidc  r.  School  District.  8  N.  D.,  496;  57  N.  W.,  787;  28  L.  R.  A.,  642)  or  a 
longer  term   (Neitou  r.  Town  of  Dyersbur.i;,  127  U.  S..  160;  S  Sup.  Ct.,  1111;  32 


3  3  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

]..  Kd.,  8.".:  Baruuin  r.  Okoloiia.  148  U.  H.,  393j  13  Sup.  Ct.,  63S ;  37  L.  Ed.,  495) 
tliaii  tliat  autliorizeil  are  invalid."     (Id.,  p.  2~)2.) 

Later  statutes  tend  to  ^ive  elasticity,  and  permit  the  district  to  issue 
bonds  payable  over  diii'erent  and  fjenerally  longer  periods  of  time  and 
i2;ive  elasticity  to  the  matter  in  various  ways. 

The  bonds  nuist  bear  interest,  generally  at  (>  per  cent,  payable  semi- 
annually, and  may  be  sohl  by  the  board  unck'i-  most  statutes  at  90  ])er 
cent  of  par  value,  though  in  some  cases  the  re<|uiiement  is  not  less 
than  85  or  95  per  cent,  and  one  or  two  statutes  prohibit  the  district 
from  disposing  of  the  bonds  at  less  tlian  par. 

iVef/of/'t/hJI/'f//. — The  courts  have  fully  upheld  the  negotiable  char- 
acter which  the  legislatures  have  sought  to  stamp  upon  irrigation 
district  bonds.  The  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  for  the 
Eighth  Circuit  in  the  ca.se  of  Shelton  r.  Cas  Securities  Co.  {'2W  P>d., 
€53,  G59),  said  of  irrigation-district  bonds: 

01>li. nations  of  tliis  nature  are  sultject  to  tlie  same  I'ules  as  otlier  ne.i;'otial)le 
paper.     (Cromwell  r.  ("ounty  of  Sac.  9()  U.  S..  .')!  :  24  L.  Ed..  (JSl.  i 

"These  l)on'ds  were  intended  for  sale;  and  it  was  rationally  to  l)e  expected 
that  they  wovd<l  be  i)ut  upon  distant  markets.  *  *  *  Everythinji  that  tended 
lo "depress  the  market  value  wa.s  adver.se  to  the  object  the  legislature  had  in 
view.  It  could  not  have  been  overlooked  that  tlieir  market  value  would  be 
disastrously  affec-ted  if  the  distant  purchasers  were  under  obligation  to  inquire 
before  their  purchase,  or  whenever  they  demanded  i)ayment  of  jirincipal  or 
interest,  whether  certain  contingencies  of  fact  had  haiipened  before  the  bonds 
wei'e  issued — contingencies  the  happening  of  which  it  would  be  almost  impos- 
sil)Ie  for  them  in  many  cases  to  ascertain  with  certainty.  Imposing  such  an 
obligation  upon  the  purchasers  would  tend  to  defeat  the  primai-y  purpose  the 
legislature  had  in  view.  *  *  *  Such  an  interi)i-etation  ought  not  to  l)e  given 
to  the  statute,  if  it  can  reasonably  be  avoided  ;  and  we  think  it  may  be  avoided." 
(Town  of  C'olona  r.  Eaves,  92  I'.  S.,  484,  487.  488;  23  L.  Ed.,  579.) 

The  foregoing  language  of  the  Supreme  Court  has  wide  application  and  dis- 
clo-ses  the  reasoning  upon  which  this  rule  of  estoppel  is  based. 

While  the  ''contingencies  of  fact''  are  no  i)art  of  the  necessary 
inquiry  of  a  bona  fide  pu.rchaser  of  irrigation  district  bonds,  as 
pointed  out  by  the  foregoing  quotation,  yet  the  authority  of  law  be- 
hind the  securities  is  a  matter  as  to  Avhich  even  the  bona  fide  pur- 
chaser must  at  his  ])eril  assure  himself. 

As  stated  in  the  case  of  Wright  r.  East  Iviverside  Irr.  Dist.,  in  the 
same  court : 

The  law  is  well  settled  that  bona  tide  i)urchasers  of  municipal  bonds  take 
with  notice  of  the  law  under  which  such  bonds  are  issued.  The  plaintiff  in 
error  must  therefore  be  held  to  have  known  of  tlie  provisions  of  the  act  called 
the  Wright  Act.     (138  Fed.,  313.) 

It  Avas  also  held  in  this  case  that  where  bonds  are  antedated  so 
as  to  reduce  the  repayment  period  specified  by  law  they  are  invalid 
in  the  hands  of  bona  fide  holders,  and  the  court  applies  to  irrigation 
district  bonds  in  the  hands  of  such  holders  the  following  statement 
of  law  by  the  Ignited  States  Supreme  Court : 

I'urchasers  of  municipal  securities  nuist  always  take  the  ilsk  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  official  signatures  of  those  who  execute  the  paper  tlie.v  buy.  This 
includes  not  only  the  genuineness  of  the  signature  itself,  but  the  official  char- 
acter of  him  who  makes  it.  (Id.,  p.  322,  quoting  from  Antonv  v.  County  of 
Jasper,  101  U.  S.,  693.) 

The  rights  of  bona  fide  holders  of  irrigation  district  bonds  have 
been  passed  upon  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of 
Tulare  Irrigation  District  v.  Shepard  (185  U.  S,,  1).    In  this  case  the 


BONDED   DEBTS.  39 

laiulowneis  hud  interposed  iio  objection  to  the  uction  of  the  board  of 
.sni)eivisors  in  establisliino-  tlu'  iirioafion  disti'lct.  nor  to  the  election 
hekl  upon  oriianizalion,  nor  to  the  authorization  of  tiie  bonds,  and 
pursuant  tliereto  assessments  had  been  inach'  and  U'vied  for  a  period 
of  three  years.    It  was  hehl  as  follows: 

I'lider  tliese  circiaiistaiices  and  by  reason  of  the  statute  and  the  recitals  in 
the  bonds,  we  tliink  tlie  l.-uidowner  is  estopped  from  setting;  np  the  defense  of  tlie 
Avtint  of  notice  as  against  tlie  plaintiff  in  tliis  case,  l)ecaus('  he  is  a  bona  tide 
holder  for  full  value  without  notice,  and  because  the  bindowners  acquiesc(>d  ju 
the  issue  of  tiie  bonds  and  iiave  I'eceived  the  full  benelil  (»f  their  proceeds.  (Id., 
p.  19.) 

Irrigation  district  bonds  are  nevertheless  ne<>-otiable,  althou<rh 
under  the  statute  and  by  their  express  terms  they  be  payable  out  of 
a  particular  fund  of  the  district.  The  technical  rules  of  the  law  mer- 
chant to  the  contrary  are  moditied  for  this  type  of  security  by  the 
law  which  declares  the  bonds  ne<i()tiable  in  chai'acter.  (Kinkade  v. 
Witherop,  Gl>  Pac,  8!)0,  401;  2U  Wash..  10.) 

jSeaa^iti/  J)ehind  the  honch. — As  will  be  noted  from  the  discussion  of 
the  methods  of  assessment  and  le\ y,  undertaken  below,  the  entire 
landed  value  is  subject  to  assessment  for  district  [)ur[)oses.  and  in  the 
context  relatino-  to  bonds  the  statutes  co'itain  substantially  the  pro- 
vision that  the  bonds  and  interest  shall  be  paid  l)y  revenue  derived 
from  an  annual  as.sessment  ui)on  the  real  ])roperty  of  the  district,  and 
that  ''all  the  real  ])ro])erty  in  the  district  shall  be  and  remain  liable 
to  be  assessed  for  such  i)ayments."' 

Some  statutes  nuike  additional  j)rovision  that  the  bonds  shall  be- 
come a  lien  upon  all  the  water  riohts  au'l  other  property  acquired 
by  any  district  and  ui)on  its  canals.  waterwv)rks,  aiul  other  proi)eity, 
o-ivino-  the  riiiht  to  the  holders  of  bonds  to  take  possession  of  the 
property  of  the  district  and  to  control  the  s*une  until  the  lien  can  l)e 
enforced  in  a  civil  action  by  foreclosure.  (Eeminoton  Codes  and 
Statutes  of  Washinoton.  sec.  ()482,  and  ()re<>on  Laws  of  IDIT,  p.  757.) 
In  many  cases  such  possession  woidd  be  as  mtich  a  liability  as  an 
asset,  for  it  would  unquestionably  be  burdened  with  the  duty  of  de- 
livering water  to  the  farmers.  Be  this  as  it  mav,  it  should  be  noted 
that  the  Supreme  Court  of  California  has  held  a  provision  in  the 
amendatory  act  of  IHDH  that  a  l)oard  of  directors  of  a  district  shall 
have  the  power  to  pledtje  by  mortgage,  trust  deed,  or  otherwise,  all 
property  of  the  district  as  additional  .security  for  the  payment  of 
bonds  to  be  unconstitutional.  The  view  was  talaMi  that  this  provision 
Avoidd  be  in  conti'a\ention  of  the  constitutiontd  prohibition  against 
the  delegation  of  the  possession  and  management  of  the  property  of 
public  corporations.  (San  Diego  v.  Irr.  Dist..  77  Pac.  0:)7 :  111 
Calif.,  329.) 

The  Federal  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Ninth  District  in 
interpreting  the  California  act,  has  decided  that  the  irrigation  dis- 
trict bonds  "constitute  a  general  obligation  of  the  irrigati(m  district 
to  pay  the  princii)al  and  interest  thereof  as  therein  ])rovided  for,  and 
that  a  bona  fide  holder  of  such  bonds  is  not  limited  to  anv  particular 
fund."  (Rialto  Irr.  Dist.  v._  Stowell,  246  Fed.,  294,  305  (1917).) 
The  court  quotes,  from  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  TTnited 
States  as  applicable  to  irrigation  di.strict  bonds,  the  following  state- 
ment : 

Experience  informs  us  that  llu'  city  wotdd  have  met  with  s(M-ious,  if  not 
insuperable,   obstacles   in    its   ueirotiations   liad    the   bonds   upon    their   face,    in 


40  HAISTDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

unmistakable  terms,  declared  that  the  purchaser  had  no  security  beyond  the 
assessments  upon  the  particular  property  improved.  If  the  corporate*  authori- 
ties intended  such  to  be  the  contract  with  the  holders  of  the  bonds,  the  same 
good  faith  which  underlies  and  pervades  the  statute  of  ^Nlarch  2.  1871,  required 
an  explicit  avowal  of  such  ])ui-pose  in  the  bond  itself,  or,  in  some  other  form, 
by  langua.ue,  brou.alit  home  to  the  purchaser,  which  could  neither  mislead  nor  be 
misunderstood.      (Id.,  jt.  305.) 

In  brief  the  tangible  security  behind  irrigation  district  bonds  con- 
sists of  the  total  value  of  the  real  estate  within  the  district  benefited 
by  irrigation,  and  this  security  is  made  available  through  the  powers 
of  taxation.  These  powers  must  be  exercised  by  the  executive  offi- 
cers of  the  district  who  may  or  may  not  be  county  officials  as  well. 
But  this  phase  of  the  subject  is  presented  beloAv  (p.  54). 

Immunity  from  taxation  in  California. — The  salability  of  bonds  of 
California  irrigation  districts  has  been  greatly  increased  for  the  local 
public,  among  the  bonds  of  othei-  classes  of  public  and  quasi-public 
corporations,  by  the  enactment  by  the  people  of  the  State  of  the 
following  constitutional  amendment : 

All  bonds  hereafter  issued  by  the  State  of  California,  or  by  any  county,  city 
and  county,  municipal  cori)oration,  or  district  ( includinjr  school,  reclamation, 
and  irrigiition  districts)  within  said  State,  shall  be  free  and  exempt  from  taxa- 
tion.    New  section  adopted  Nov.  4,  1902,  as  sec.  If  of  Art.  XIII.) 

Various  doctrines  protecting  hondholders. — The  effect  upon  the 
bonds  of  proceedings  for  the  exclusion  of  lands  (p.  78)  and  for  the 
dissolution  of  the  district  is  discussed  below  (p.  85),  as  is  also  the 
construction  which  has  been  placed  by  the  courts  upon  decrees  in  con- 
firmation of  irrigation  district  bonds  (p.  47).  These  features,  there- 
fore, will  not  be  treated  at  this  point.  There  are,  however,  several 
additional  safeguards  which  the  courts  have  placed  about  irrigation 
district  bonds  following -the  underlying  principles  invoked  in  favor 
of  the  securities  of  public  corporations  in  general,  which  should  now 
be  briefly  outlined. 

When  irrigation  district  statutes  are  amended  in  some  fundamental 
fashion,  provision  is  frequently  made  that  as  regards  indebtedness 
previously  incurred  the  former  law  shall  remain  unchanged.  (See 
Harris  v."Tarbet,  57  Pac,  33;  19  Utah,  328.)  But  irrespective  of  the 
statutory  provision,  under  familiar  principles  the  courts  do  not 
tolerate  an  amendment  of  an  irrigation  district  act  to  be  so  con- 
strued as  to  lessen  the  security  of  the  bondholders. 

The  irrigation  district  law  constitutes  in  theory  a  contract  between 
the  State  and  those  who  have  availed  them.selves  of  the  act.  The 
Supreme  Court  of  California,  in  holding  an  amendatory  act  contrary 
to  the  constitutional  prohibition  against  the  enactment  of  any  law 
impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts,  expressed  the  following  views : 

The  act  providing  for  the  organization  of  the  district,  and  the  organization  of 
the  district  inider  the  provisions  of  the  act  by  the  vote  of  its  electors,  can  not 
he  otherwise  regarded  than  as  a  contract  between  the  State  and  the  individuals 
whose  property  was  thereby  affected.  The  contract,  iiuleed,  lacks  one  of  the 
ordinary  elements  of  contracts,  namely,  the  actual  consent  of  all  the  parties 
to  it,  but  by  the  provisions  of  the  statute,  the  majoriy  of  the  electors  were, 
empowered  to  act  and  consent  for  the  individual  proprietors ;  ami,  unless  this 
Avere  a  legitimate  exercise  of  the  powers  of  the  State,  the  statnle  itself  would 
be  invalid.  (Merchants'  National  Bank  of  San  Diego  v.  Escondido  Irr.  Dist., 
77  Pac,  937,  939;  144  Calif.,  329.) 

In  Oregon  an  amendatory  act  changed  the  officers  by  which  assess- 
ments were  made,  and  altered  the  method  of  assessment  from  a  flat 


BONDED  DEBTS.  41 

rate  per  acre  to  the  beneficial  rate.  Tliese  cliangjes  were  held  to  be 
legislatiA'e  questions  "  with  which  we  have  nothing  to  do,  and,  stand- 
ing alone,  these  changes  have  no  bearing  upon  the  obligations  of  the 
bonds."  The  law.  however,  furthermore  so  changed  the  times  of 
collection  and  delincjiiency  that  the  necessary  funds  would  not  be 
available  for  the  payment  of  interest  upon  the  bonds  at  the  proper 
time.  The  court  held  tliat  this  amendatory  pi'ovision,  if  made  effec- 
tive as  regards  the  assessments  to  meet  tlie  bonds  previously  issued, 
would  imi:>air  the  contract  of  the  bondholders,  and  I'eached  the  con- 
clusion that  "therefore,  the  amendment  can  not  apply  to  obligations 
existing  at  the  tiuie  of  the  enactuient."  ((ribbons  v.  Hood  Tvi\er  Irr. 
Dist.,  133  Pac,  77-2;  06  Oreg.  (1913),  208.) 

The  status  of  irrigation  districts  when  acting  as  de  facto  cor- 
porations has  already  been  touched  npon  (p.  17).  The  trend  of 
the  decisions  is  toward  recoonizino-  as  valid  l)onds  of  these  de  facto 
ii-rigation  districts.  In  the  case  of  Miller  /•.  Perris  Ii'ri.  Dist..  99 
Fed.,  143,  a  decree  was  gi-anted  declaring  the  proceeding  for  the 
organization  of  the  irrigation  district  void.  This,  however,  was 
held  not  to  impair  the  obligation  of  the  bonds,  since  the  disti'ict  had 
been  exercising  the  powers  under  the  law  as  a  corporation  in  fact. 
The  court  held  as  follows : 

From  tlie  doctrine  thus  aiinoiiiiced  it  follows,  in  my  oiiinion,  that  thr  judg- 
ment set  ui)  in  the  sui)]»l(Miieiital  ]»ill,  deelarin.i;'  void  the  pi-oceedin.us  for  the 
organization  of  the  Perris  irrigation  district,  (hies  not  impair  llie  validity  of, 
nor  afford  finy  ground  for  equitable  relief  against,  obligations  incurred  prior 
to  said  judgment.  (Id.,  p.  l.")0,  citing  Sliai)leigh  r.  City  of  San  Angelo,  K57 
U.  S.,  646.  and  other  authorities.) 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  held  tliat.  irrespec- 
tive of  a  decree  in  confirmation  and  aside  from  the  rights  of  the 
bondholders  as  bona  fide  purchasers,  both  the  landowners  and  the 
district  must  make  timely  objection  to  the  issuance  of  bonds  if 
their  attack  is  to  avail. 

The  court  declined  to  consider  the  defects  in  the  organization 
which  were  urged  as  rendering  the  formation  of  the  district  invalid, 
and  held  as  follows: 

In  addition  to  the  strength  of  the  ])osition  of  the  plaintiH'  in  llie  action  as 
a  bona  fide  purchaser  and  holder  of  the  bonds,  the  position  of  the  defendajus 
merits  due  consideration.  Regarding  the  individual  defendants,  it  is  scarcely 
l)ossible  to  believe  that  they  were  not  aware  of  the  proceedings  above  recited 
taken  to  organize  the  corporati(m,  and  thereafter  to  issue  its  bonds,  evi>n 
though  it  should  be  admitted  that  the  published  notice  was  not  legally  sulli- 
cient  to  comi)ly  with  tlie  statute.  They  were  the  owners  of  land  within  the 
proposed  district.  The  proceedings  were  all  of  a  public  nature,  aii<l  two  jniblic 
elections  were  held  within  the  district  before  the  bonds  were  issued.  Of  these 
facts,  already  detaiUnl,  we  say  it  is  impossible  to  lielieve  that  the  individual 
defendants  did  not  liave  knowledge  at  the  time  of  their  occurrence,  and  yet 
fhey  took  no  action  to  prevent  the  issuing  of  the  bonds  or  to  call  in  question 
by  the  slightest  hint  the  validity  of  the  organization  of  the  district  as  a  corpora- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  they  entirely  a<'(juiesced  in  all  the  proceedings  leading 
tip  to  their  issue,  in  obtaining  the  moneys  therefrom,  in  the  ex])enditui'e 
lliereof  for  the  purpose  for  which  the  lionds  were  issued,  and  in  paying  during 
several  years  the  assessments  made  ujion  the  lands  within  the  district  for  the 
ptirpose  of  j)aying  the  interest  on  the  bonds  which  had  i)eeii  issued.  (Tulare 
Irrigation  District  c.  Shepard,  185  U.  S.,  2.5.) 

Officers  of  an  irrigation  district  are  tru.stees.  and  aie  within  the 
rules  of  law  governing  fiduciaries  in  their  administration  of  irii- 


42  HANDBOOK    OF    IRRIGATION    DISTRICT   LAWS. 

o'ation  district   funds.     To  quote   from  Thompson    r.  Emmett  Irr. 
Dist.,  22T  Fed.,  .MW: 

Tlie  offic-ers  of  the  irrifiatioii  district  stiuul  in  tlie  relation  of  tinistees  for 
tlie  l»()ndli()l(lers  of  tlie  district.  Tlie  moneys  collected  l).v  them  from  tlie  tax- 
] layers  for  the  i)aymeiit  of  the  interest  on  the  bonds  constitute  a  trust  fund 
which  can  not  he  applied  or  diverted  to  any  other  purpose.  They  have  col- 
lected iiumey  from  the  taxpayers  for  the  payment  of  the  interest  on  the  bonds 
of  the  district,  and  they  are  not  applying:  that  money  to  such  puri)ose.     *     *     * 

*  *  *  They  may  be  sued  at  law  for  money  liad  and  received,  but  they 
may  also  be  sued  in  e(niity  for  breach  of  trust  if  they  have  failed  to  porfonn 
their  duties  as  trustee.  (Id.,  pp.  uGG.  .">(>7 :  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals,  Ninth 
(Mrcuit,  11)1.-..) 

Cotifrnutfion  of  bonds. — All  the  statutes  provide  for  proceedings 
in  local  courts,  either  discretionary  or  mandatory  upon  the  board, 
for  the  confirmation  of  the  proceedinos,  for  the  authorization  of  the 
bonds,  and  the  oroanization  of  the  district.  Since  the  scope  of  judi- 
cial confirmation  in  irrigation  district  hnvs  has  broadened  to  include 
several  matters  other  than  the  issuance  of  bonds,  it  has  l)een  deemed 
better  to  treat  confirmation  as  a  matter  for  discussion  separate  from 
the  subject  of  bonds.  The  reader  should  accordingly  examine  the 
material  otfered  under  the  head  of  ''Confirmation  proceedings"  in 
this  connection,  as  he  Avill  find  one  of  the  most  iuiportant  safe- 
guards of  the  bonds  outlined  thereunder. 

R(f/lKfr((fk)n  and  cviti-fi cation  of  l)ondi<. — It  is  obviously  to  the 
advantage  of  both  the  irrigation  district  and  the  public  to  throw 
every  possible  safeguard  around  the  bond  issues,  at  once  protecting 
the  holders  of  the  bonds  and  giving  the  district  paper  a  stability  in 
value  and  a  standing  in  the  financial  markets. 

About  half  of  the  States  have  adopted  some  method  whereby  the 
bonds  of  the  district,  after  being  confirmed  by  the  court,  are  regis- 
tered and  certified  by  some  agency  of  the  State  or  connty,  generally 
the  connty  treasurer  or  the  State  engineer.  This  action  is  made 
compulsory  in  .some  States,  it  being  provided  that  no  bonds  shall  be 
valid  unless  they  are  registered  and  bear  the  indorsement  of  the 
proper  officer  showing  compliance  with  the  law.  The  certificate  is 
indorsed  npon  or  attached  to  the  bond,  and  is  always  available  as 
evidence  that  the  forms  of  law  have  been  observed  in  its  issuance. 

These  statutory  certification  requirements  are  of  two  clas.ses.  In 
the  majority  of  the  States  which  require  certification  it  is  provided 
that  a  State  or  county  official  named  .'-hall  certify  npon  the  bonds  that 
the  district  has  taken  the  statutory  steps  necessary  before  bonds  are 
authorized,  generally  including  judicial  confirmation.  It  does  not 
mean,  however,  that  the  certifying  officer  has  investigated  the  stand- 
ing of  the  irrigation  project  as  a  feasible  undertaking,  nor  the  bonds 
as  a  legitiuiate  and  safe  investment.  Landowners  might  in  .several 
of  the  States  organize  an  irrigation  district  and  comply  with  the 
forms  of  law  without  any  supervision  having  been  given  to  the  district 
from  the  standpoint  of  feasibility.^ 

In  Colorado  the  State  treasurer  may  invest  certain  State  funds  in 
the  bonds  of  irrigation  districts  which  have  been  legally  confirmed, 
but  only  after  the  State  engineer  has  certified  that  the  works  so 
financed  are  completed  for  the  successful  irrigation  of  the  district. 

'  Protection  again.st  this  contingency  is  fiirnished  by  several  States  In  the  requirement 
thai  the  State  engineer  sliall  be  called  upon  to  perform  certain  functions  described  in 
this  discussion    (p,   10). 


BOXDED   DEBTS.  43 

Not  more  than  10  per  cent  of  the  total  bond  issue  of  any  one  district 
may  lie  so  purchased.      (Mills  Ami.  Stat.,  1912.  sec.  5808.) 

Sdtiic — Cei'ti-ficiii'ioti  of  project  f((i,.s!hir(fi/. — A  certification  ])lan  lias 
been  ado))ted  in  California  and  ()re<>"on.  liowever.  which  oti'ers  to  the 
investor  not  merely  security  that  the  law  has  been  comi)lied  with,  but 
also  assurance  as  to  the  chai-acter  of  the  inxestment  by  the  State  engi- 
neer, the  attorney  ovneral  and  superintcTident  of  baidvs  followino-  ari 
in\esti<>'ation  of  the  pi-oject. 

Ste]3s  lookiniT  to  certification  are  discretionary  with  the  board  of 
<lirectors.  who  may  icfei-  to  the  commission  the  (juestion  of  the  eligi- 
bility for  certification  of  any  outstanding  or  contemi)lated  bond  issue. 
In  the  proxisions  as  to  the  conHnission's  in\estigation  emi)hasis  is  laid 
upon  matters  of  the  soil,  the  I'eiisonabk'  market  value  of  the  land,  the 
iiiigation  Avoiks,  and  the  water  rights  of  the  distiict. 

After  due  investigation,  the  connnission  submits  a  written  re]')ort 
to  the  State  conti'oller.  If  the  report  shows  that  the  project  for  which 
the  bonds  are  proposed  is  feasible  and  that  the  aggregate  amount  of 
bonds  under  consideration  Avith  any  outstanding  bonds  of  the  district 
does  not  exceed  a  specified  ])ercentage  limitation  ((>()  i)er  cent  in  Cali- 
fornia and  50  ])er  cent  in  Oregon)  of  the  total  market  value  of  the 
lands  within  the  district  the  water  rights  and  irrigation  works  owned 
by  the  district,  or  to  be  acquired  or  constructed  with  the  ])roceeds 
of  any  bonds  of  the  district,  the  bonds  will  be  entitled  to  certification 
by  the  State  controller  u])  to  an  amount  named  in  the  report  of  the 
connnission  as  the  lawful  ])ercentage  limitation. 

The  certificate  of  the  State  controller  is  attached  to  the  bonds.  Tt 
states  in  effect  that  the  bonds  have  been  ajiproved  in  accordance  with 
the  act  of  the  legislature  as  legal  investments  for  all  trust  funds  and 
for  the  funds  of  all  insurance  companies,  banks,  and  trust  companies 
(and  in  California.  State  school  funds  also)  :  that  they  may  be  de- 
posited as  security  for  the  performance  of  any  act  whenever  bonds  of 
Muv  county,  city,  or  school  district  might  be  so  deposited:  and  that 
they  may  l)e  used  as  security  for  the  deposit  of  public  money  in  banks 
in  the  State. 

Subsecjuent  issues  of  bonds  may  be  made  availal)le  for  certification 
n])on  like  proceedings  by  the  same  district,  but  after  any  of  the  bonds 
of  a  district  ha\e  thus  l)ecome  entitled  to  certification  by  the  State 
controllei'.  it  is  declared  uidawful  for  such  district  to  issue  bonds  that 
will  not  be  entitled  to  such  certification. 

California  fui'ther  provides  that  no  expenditure  of  any  kind  shall 
be  made  from  the  construction  fund  of  a  district  after  its  bonds  have 
been  certified  as  legal  investments  without  the  consent  of  the  commis- 
sion;  and  that  no  obligation  may  be  incurred  against  said  fund  with- 
out the  previous  authorization  of  the  commission.  Xo  expenses  of 
any  kind  may  be  incurred  by  such  district  in  excess  of  the  money 
actually  provided  by  levy  and  assessment  or  otherwise.  (Gen.  Laws, 
Oreg.,  lOlT,  pp.  T7T-T80;  Calif.,  act  of  June  13,  1913,  amended  L., 
1917,  p.  582.) 

Such  a  law  offers  much  in  the  way  of  security  against  efforts  in  the 
nature  of  wildcatting  and  speculation  at  the  expense  of  the  investor 
and  represents  un(|uestionably  a  bona  hde  effort  to  enhance  the  stand- 
ing of  the  irrigation  securities  in  the  market.  The  likelihood  of  the 
owners  of  land  embarking  upon  an  irrigation  project  and  securing  the 
formal  cooperation  of  local  county  officials  and  selling  bonds  under 


44  HANDBOOK    OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

conditions  of  doubtful  feasibility  is  much  greater  than  is  the  prob- 
ability of  high  State  officials  indorsing,  after  investigation,  an  enter- 
prise having  insufficient  basis. 

/SaJe  of  bonds. — Bonds  of  the  character  above  outlined  may  be  sold 
from  time  to  time  in  such  (juantities  as  may  be  necessary  and  most 
advantageous  to  raise  money  for  the  construction  of  works,  after 
]-esolutions  declaring  the  intention  to  sell  a  specified  amount.  There- 
upon, in  some  jStates  the  directors  may  sell  without  advertising  for 
bids  if  a  sale  can  be  made  at  not  less  than  par.  In  other  States  the 
board  must  publish  notices  of  the  sale  and  ask  for  proposals  to  pur- 
chase the  l)onds.  It  may  then  award  the  bonds  to  the  highest  respon- 
sible bidder,  or  it  may  reject  all  bids.  In  the  latter  event,  the  board 
may  sell  at  private  sale  or  may  exchange  the  bonds  for  materials  or 
labor  in  connection  with  the  construction  of  its  works. 

Fre(jUently  there  is  no  limit  to  the  i>rice  which  the  board  may  accept 
for  the  bonds  where  properly  advertised  bids  have  been  received,  but 
the  majority  of  States  fix  a  minimum  price,  ranging  from  85  to  100 
per  cent  of  the  par  value  of  the  bonds.  Some  of  the  States,  however, 
provide  that  neither  at  puV)lic  nor  i^rivate  sale  or  exchange  can  the 
bonds  be  sold  for  less  than  their  par  value  and  accrued  interest. 

Retirement  of  honds  hefore  maturiti/. — In  some  States  express  au- 
thority is  given  for  the  liquidation  of  bonds  before  maturity,  as  funds 
become  available  for  that  purpose. 

The  most  common  provision  is  that  whene\er,  after  10  years  from 
the  date  of  the  bond  issue,  the  fund  for  the  payment  thereof  amounts 
to  the  sum  of  $10,000  the  district  may  advertise  for  proposals  for  the 
redemption  of  bonds.  The  lowest  bid  is  accepted,  but  in  case  the  bids 
are  equal  the  lowest-numbered  bonds  are  given  the  preference.  Xo 
bonds  may  be  redeemed  at  more  than  their  face  value  with  accrued 
interest.  In  case  none  of  the  holders  of  the  bonds  wishes  to  sell,  the 
money  in  the  bond  fund  is  invested  in  United  States  gold-bearing 
bonds  or  in  the  bonds  of  the  respective  States,  which  shall  be  kept  in 
the  bond  fund  and  used  to  redeem  the  bonds  whenever  the  holders 
thereof  desire. 

RcfuridrDfi  honds. — In  the  course  of  time  a  district  may  find  itself 
so  situated  that  it  Avould  be  highly  advantageous  to  renew  its  bonds 
or,  through  negotiation,  to  recall  them  and  substitute  other  securities 
bearing  a  smaller  rate  of  interest  or  maturing  at  a  different  date. 

By  a  grant  of  power  to  issue  original  bonds  the  authority  to  issue 
refunding  bonds  is  not  implied.  (28  Cyc,  loS'i.)  In  the'  absence  of 
express  statutory  enactment  on  the  subject,  therefore,  the  district  is 
poAverless  to  avail  itself  of  any  opportunity  to  improve  its  condition 
in  this  manner. 

Some  of  the  States  have  provided  for  this  contingency,  but  there  is 
a  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  various  statutes  on  the  subject."  Gen- 
erally speaking,  where  such  statute  exists  the  board  of  directors  of 
the  district  is  empowered  to  initiate  proceedings  looking  toward  the 
issuance  of  refunding  bonds  whenever  it  deems  such  action  necessary. 
The  question  of  the  issue  of  the  bonds  is  then  submitted  to  the  vote 
of  the  district  after  notice.     Some  States  permit  the  directors  to 

'  Refunding  bond  laws  will  be  found  as  follows  :  California.  Deering  Gen.  Laws,  Act 
1727  ;  Colorado,  L.  1915,  p.  319 :  Oklahoma,  L.  1915,  pp.  536-538  ;  Texas,  L.  1917,  p. 
-•09;  North  Dakota,  L.  3  917,  p.  100;  South  Dakota,  L.  1917,  p.  587. 


INDEBTEDNESS   XOT   BONDED.  45 

decide  the  matter  after  due  notice  of  hearing  and  afford  an  appeal  to 
the  courts. 

Generally,  the'  provisions  are  somewhat  elastic,  the  manifest  pur- 
pose beino-  to  permit  the  district  a  ]:)i'0{)er  latitude  in  the  matter  of 
securing-  suitable  terms  for  the  refuncling  issue.  For  instance,  in 
Colorado  the  date  of  maturity  of  the  various  series  of  refunding 
bonds  may  be  determined  by  the  district  within  the'  rather  Avide  range 
of  from  10  to  50.  years,  with  the  authority  in  the  district,  at  its 
option,  to  issue  bonds  containing  the  provision  that  they  may  be  paid 
at  any  time. 

Refunding  bonds  may  not  be  issued  for  a  larger  amount  than  the 
obligations  to  be  retired  tliereby,  nor  may  they  bear  interest  greater 
in  rate  or  amount  per  annum.  The  i)ur})ose  of  their  issue  should  ap- 
pear on  the  face  of  the  bonds  and  the  bonds  in  lieu  of  which  they 
are  issued  must  be  canceled  as  they  are  taken  up. 

The  bonds  may  either  be  sold  to  the  highest  bidder,  after  due  notice 
of  sale,  and  the  proceeds  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  outstanding  in- 
debtedness proposed  to  be  retired  or  they  may  be  exchanged  for  such 
outstanding  bonds  or  other  evidence  of  indebtedness.  Neither  by 
sale  nor  by  exchange,  however,  may  the  bonds  be  disposed  of  for  less 
than  par.  All  refunding  bonds  not  used  for  the  purposes  for  which 
they  were  issued  must  be  canceled. 

Special  taxes  are  levied  to  redeem  refunding  bonds,  and  the  col- 
lections thereof  are  kept  in  a  separate  fund  until  applied  to  that 
purpose. 

Effect  of  changes  in  ells f net  upon  honels. — The  laws  provided  for 
the  inclusion  and  exclusion  of  lands  subsequent  to  organization  and 
for  the  dissolution  of  the  district.  The  status  of  outstanding  l)onds, 
in  case  of  proceedings  for  change  of  boundaries  and  for  dissolution 
will  be  found  discussed  later  in  connection  with  such  proceedings 
(pp.  7S  and  85). 

INDEBTEDNESS   NOT  BONDED. 

The  States  generally  have  placed  a  limitation  upon  the  amount  of 
current  and  other  indebtedness,  not  secured  by  bonds,  which  ma}'  be 
incurred  by  the  directors  without  the  concurrence  of  the  electors. 

Several  States  expressly  provide  that  the  directors  may  contract 
obligations  and  issue  warrants  on  behalf  of  the  district  in  connection 
with  the  organization  thereof  or  in  making  surveys  or  investigations 
to  determine  the  feasibility  of  the  proposed  irrigation  j^roject  for 
not  to  exceed  a  specified  sum  or  a  certain  amount  per  acre  of  the 
lands  proposed  to  be  irrigated. 

In  most  of  the  States,  however,  tliei'e  is  a  general  provision  to  the 
effect  that  the  directors  may  acquire  or  purchase  any  or  all  proi:)erty 
necessary  for  the  use  of  the  district,  and  where  the  consideration  to 
be  paid  for  such  property  is  not  more  than  $10,000  the  board 
need  not  secure  the  concurrence  of  the  electors. 

But  where  the  consideration  to  be  paid  is  in  excess  of  $10,000 
and  less  than  $'25,000  the  contract  must  be  ratified  in  writing  by  at 
least  one-third  of  the  qualified  electors  according  to  the  number  of 
votes  cast  at  the  last  election.  No  contract  in  excess  of  $25,000  may 
be  made  without  being  first  authorized  by  an  election  held  in  the 
same  manner  as  is  provided  for  elections  on  bond  issues. 


•X  J  HANDBOOK   OF   IRPJGATIOX    DISTRICT   LAWS. 

In  California.  ^Montana,  and  AVashinoton  tlie  rule  is  more  scientific, 
the  limitation  being  based  upon  the  acreage  of  the  district  involved. 
The  provision  in  the  first-named  State  is  that  contracts  anioiniting 
to  more  than  $1U,U00  in  districts  of  50,000  acres  or  less,  and  contracts 
of  more  than  $50,000  in  districts  of  more  than  50,000  and  less  than 
200,000  acres  ^  are  not  binding  upon  the  district  until  a  favoring 
petition  of  the  majority  of  holders  of  title,  representing  a  majority 
in  value  of  the  acreage  of  the  lands  therein,  has  been  filed  with  the 
board.  As  an  alternative  the  petition  may  be  signed  by  500  electors 
representing  not  less  than  '20  per  cent  in  value  of  the  lands  of  the 
district.     (L.  1U17.  p.  757.) 

The  provision  of  Montana,  however,  is  more  elastic.  There  the 
district  board  may  in  any  one  year  incur  obligations  for  organiza- 
tion and  general  purposes  in  an  amount  not  to  exceed  $1  for  each 
acre  of  land  within  the  district  (L.  1913,  p.  476),  while  in  Wash- 
ington (L.  11)17,  p.  785)  the  directors  may  in  cases  of  emergency  in- 
cur any  indebtedness  not  exceeding  in  the  aggregate  a  sum  equal  to 
15  per  cent  of  the  total  amount  fixed  as  rates,  tolls,  charges,  and  as- 
sessments for  the  current  year  for  the  care,  o])eration,  maintenance, 
repair,  and  impro\ement  of  the  irrigation  works  of  the  district. 

Without  entering  upon  a  discussion  of  what  latitude  should  be 
allowed  to  boards  of  directors  in  the  matter  of  pledging  the  credit  of 
the  district  without  the  prior  consent  of  the  electors,  it  is  believed  to 
be  obvious  that  a  provision  basing  the  power  to  incur  liability  upon 
the  acreage  of  the  district  or  upon  the  amonnt  of  its  assessments  is 
]>referable  for  the  reason  that  it  adjusts  itself  much  more  completely 
<()  the  probable  needs  of  all  classes  of  districts  than  a  fixed  limita- 
tion imposed  without  regard  to  the  size  of  the  district. 

Warrants. — Claims  against  an  irrigation  district,  other  than  those 
represented  by  its  bond  issues,  are  submitted,  generally  nnder  oath 
of  claimant,  to  the  board  of  directors  upon  vouchers  or  other  proper 
forms.  When  approved  by  the  board  warrants  signed  by  the  presi- 
dent and  countersigned  by  the  secretary  are  issued,  stating  the  date 
on  which  they  were  authorized  l)y  the  board  and  for  what  purpose. 
They  are  then  paid  by  tlie  treasurer  upon  presentation  to  him.  But 
if  funds  are  not  available,  indorsement  is  made  and  the  warrant 
draws  interest  from  that  date  until  ]:)aid  or  until  notice  that  funds 
are  availal)le  for  ])ayment.  When. there  is  $100  or  more  in  the  hands 
of  the  treasurer  a\ailablc  for  the  retirement  of  thewarrants,  it  shall 
be  applied  to  their  payment. 

The  district  treasurer  must  keep  a  record  of  the  warrants  presented 
for  payment  with  the  date  of  presentation,  and  when  funds  are  avail- 
jible  they  nnist  lie  paid  in  the  order  of  their  presentation. 

It  is  provided  in  some  States  that  no  irrigation  district  may  issue 
warrants  in  any  one  year  in  excess  of  90  per  cent  of  the  levy  for  such 
year;  but  in  case  of  due  and  outstanding  oldigations  against  the  dis- 
trict on  account  of  operation  and  maintenance  or  current  ex])enses 
incurred  prior  to  the  year  for  which  any  levy  is  made,  the  district 
board  may  make  an  additional  levy,  within  certain  specified  limita- 
tions, to  create  a  special  fund  for  the  payment  of  past  due  obligations. 

While  the  foregoing  general  statement  represents  the  statutes  of 

^  Therp  is.   however,  unfortunately  an   ambiguity  at   thjs   point  in  the  act  and   a  con- 
fusion  exists  in   the  requisite  acreage. 


('()XFIi;.MATH)X    PROCKKPIXGS.  47 

(liose  States  which  h;i\e  i)ass('(l  detailed  eiuu  tiiient>  on  the  subject, 
tiiere  aiv  a  iiiiinber  of  legislatures  which  have  contented  themselves 
Avith  less  couipieluMisive  laws.  Several,  for  e.\anii)le.  niei'ely  i)resci'ibe 
that  disbursements  by  the  district  treasurer  shall  be  made  only  upon 
^varrants  or  orders  signed  by  the  president  and  countersigned  l)y  the 
secretary  of  the  district. 

On  the  other  hand.  Oregon,  in  addition  to  general  provisions  about 
as  outlined  abo\e,  limits  the  total  amount  of  outstanding  warrants  for 
the  i)ayment  of  which  there  are  no  funds  innnediately  available  to 
the  sum  of  not  to  exceed  $1  per  acre. 

Colorado  authorizes  the  retirement  of  warrants  by  aii  issue  of 
bonds  in  lieu  thereof  in  all  cases  w'hei'ein  bonds  might  lawfully  have 
been  issued  in  the  first  place.  The  issue  of  bonds  to  i('i)lace  waiiants 
previously  issued  is  subject  to  the  general  i-ules  goM'i-ning  tiie  au- 
thorization of  bonds.  (See  L.  Oreg.,  11)17,  p.  7(51;  M.  A.  S.  Colo., 
1912,  sec.  3979a.) 

Irrigation  district  warrants  have  been  held  not  to  be  negotiable  in- 
struments in  the  sense  of  the  law  jnerchant.  and  any  defense  which 
might  properly  have  been  urged  against  the  original  i)ayee  may  be 
enforced  against  the  assignee  even  though  he  be  a  bona  tide  pur- 
chaser. (Danbv  r.  Starlight  Irr.  Dist..  157  Pac.  lOGO;  80  Oreg, 
(19if;),()i9.) 

Con  kti;  af attox  PHocEEnixos. 

One  of  the  most  important  features  of  the  irrigation  district  law 
is  the  })rovision  which  has  been  made  for  secui'ing  a  decree  in  con- 
firmation of  the  acts  of  the  district.  The  original  "  confii'mation 
act ''  was  adopted  by  California  in  1889  as  an  enactment  sui)ple- 
mental  to  the  irrigation-district  law.  Similar  confirmation  acts  were 
adopted  in  all  States  having  irrigation-district  laws. 

Object. — Tlie  intention  is  to  eliminate  fraud  and  to  give  irrigation- 
district  bonds  a  better  standing  with  jjrospective  purchasers  by  the 
securing  of  judicial  evidence  of  the  regularity  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  district,  and  by  reducing  the  evidence  to  a  judgment,  through 
the  doctrine  of  res  judicata,  to  forestall  all  future  ijuestions  a,s  to  the 
validity  of  the  steps  taken. 

The  ]»urpose  of  the  act  of  I.SSO.  in  iirovidinu-  for  .-in  ;iil.jiHlic;ii  inn  .-is  to  flio 
validity  of  tlie  district,  was  to  furnisli  a  liarrici-  airainsf  su!ise<|iu'nt  attacics 
upon  the  ground  of  sucli  fi-ands  in  lh*>  organization  of  \\iv  district,  and  thorchy 
to  protect  its  iioniilioidoi-s.  (Fogg  r.  Pen-is  Iia'.  I)ist.,  07  I'ac.  IM{\,  H18:  154 
Calif.,  209.) 

Tlie  object  of  tlic  iirocccdiiiL:'  iv,  of  conrsc.  to  compel  c\cry  jierson  interested 
in  the  district  and  wliose  i)r<)ite!'ty  is  to  hv  bound  for  th(>  payment  of  its  debts 
lo  come  into  court  and  within  the  time  limited  i)r(>sent  and  submit  to  judicial 
investigation  any  and  all  objections  he  uiiiy  have  to  the  regularity  of  the  or- 
ganization of  the  district  and  all  other  matters  affecting  the  validity  of  tlie 
Ijonds.  so  that  it  may  be  tinally  and  conclusively  determined  by  a  judgment 
which  neither  he  nor  his  successors  in  iiderest  can  thei-t>aftei'  question,  whether 
such  bonds  are  legal  and  valid  or  not.  (I'oard  of  INFodesto  In-.  Dist.  r.  Tivgea, 
26  Pac,  237,  238;  88  Calif..  334.) 

/Scope  of  confrmaf'tot}. — While  the  scope  of  the  confirmation  act 
at  first  related  solely  to  the  issuance  of  bonds  and  conferred  jurisdic- 
tion upon  the  court  for  the  confirmation  of  organization  ])roceedings 
only  as  incidental  to  the  confirmation  of  bonds,  the  idea  has  devel- 
oped in  several  of  the  irrigation-disti'ict  St  sites  far  beyond  the  bond 
feature. 


48  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS, 

In  all  of  the  laws,  except  those  of  AYyoming  and  Kansas,  provi- 
sion hcis  been  made  for  a  decree  in  confirmation  where  contract  is  en- 
tered into  between  the  district  and  the  United  States  Government 
pursuant  to  the  Federal  reclamation  laws.  Several  of  the  statutes 
expressly  gi*an1^  jurisdiction  to  the  court  to  pass  not  only  upon  the 
validity  of  the  steps  taken  to  authorize  the  contract  with  the  United 
States  but  also  upon  the  validity  of  the  terms  of  the  contract. 

Idaho  has  also  ])roAided  for  the  confirmation  of  the  apportionment 
of  benefits  to  become  the  basis  for  assessments  to  be  made  and  levied 
for  district  jnirposes.  I'tah  and  Xe^ada  have  followed  Idaho  in  this 
provision.  In  Xew  Mexico  provision  is  made  for  the  confirmation 
of  assessments  and  awards  of  damages  for  drainage  work  and  for 
proceedings  for  changes  of  boundaries,  (See  Idaho  L.,  1915,  p.  391; 
Nev.  L.,  i91T,  p.  270:  Utah  L.,  191T,  p.  91;  Xew  Mexico  L.,  191T, 
p.  80.)  In  California  provision  has  been  made  for  the  confirmation 
of  assessments  as  well  as  of  bonds.  (Deerings  General  Laws,  sec 
68,  p.  696.) 

The  confirmation  idea  has  been  most  broadly  and  beneficially  am- 
plified  by  the  Oregon  Legislature,  wherein  provision  is  made  for  the 
judicial  confirmation  of  all  proceedings  provided  for  in  the  irriga- 
tion-district law.  In  that  State  the  board  is  given  discretion  to 
bring  confirmation  ])roceedings  for  the  organization  of  a  district  ir- 
respective of  any  pro])osed  bond  issues  or  contract  with  the  L'nited 
States,  or  for  proceedings  for  the  inclusion  of  exclusion  of  lands, 
or  to  confirm  the  result  of  any  general  or  special  election,  or  any 
order  levying  any  general  or  special  assessment,  or  ordering  the  is- 
sue of  any  bonds.     (Oreg.  L.,  1917,  p.  773,  sec.  -41.) 

The  statutes  sometimes  merely  permit  and  sometimes  require  the 
bringing  of  these  proceedings,  and  in  a.  few  States  where  action  is 
discretionary  witli  the  board  iiny  taxpayer  may  bring  the  ])roce€ding 
if  the  board  shall  fail  to  do  so. 

Statutory  procedure. — The  statutory  provisions  for  confirmation 
follow  along  similar  lines  in  the  various  States.  It  is  generally  pro- 
vided that  petition  be  filed  with  the  court  by  the  district  board 
praying  for  confirmation  and  stating  that  the  district  was  duly 
organized  and  the  first  board  duly  elected,  but  not  necessarily  setting 
forth  the  facts  showing  such  organization.  After  the  fixing  of  time 
for  hearing  upon  the  petition  the  clerk  of  court  nnist  give  notice  of 
hearing,  for  a  period  generally  of  two  or  three  weeks,  notifying  all 
persons  interested  to  demur  to  or  answer  the  petition  on  or  before  the 
date  of  hearing.  The  general  i-ules  of  pleading  and  practice  of  the 
State  are  made  applicable  to  this  proceeding. 

The  proceeding  is  one  in  rem  and  constructive  notice  by  ]Dublica- 
tion  without  personal  service  has  long  been  held  to  be  sufficient. 
(Crall  r.  Poso  Irr.  Dist.,  26  Pac,  797;  87  Calif.,  110:  Board  of 
Modesto  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Tregea,  supra :  Hanson  v.  Kittitas  Eec.  Dist., 
134  Pac,  1083:  75  Wash^  (1913),  297;  Little  Willow  Irr.  Dist.  v. 
Haynes,  133  Pac,  905:  21  Idaho  (1913),  317.) 

Jurisdiction  of  court. — Upon  hearing  the  court  is  granted  juris- 
diction to  examine  and  determine  the  legality  and  validity  of  and 
confirm  each  and  all  the  proceedings  for  organization  and  for  the 
issuance  of  bonds  and  the  sale  thereof,  or  for  authorization  of  con- 
tract with  the  United  States  or  the  proceedings  for  such  other  action 
as  may  be  before  the  court  for  confirmation,  with  the  power  to  con- 


CONFIR:\rATIOX   PKOCEEDIXGS.  49 

firm  the  procoodiiio-s  in  part  and  to  disapprove  and  declare  i]lep;al 
such  portion  of  the  proceedings  as  shall  be  invalid.  The  conrt  is 
generally  expressly  required  l»y  statute  to  disregard  any  erroi-  which 
does  not  afl'ect  the  substantial  rights  of  the  parties  if  the  proceedings 
shall  have  been  otherwise  fairly  conducted.  The  latter  provision  is 
i-eferred  to  by  the  Idaho  Supivnie  (\)urt  as  a  connnand  to  place  a 
liberal  construction  u|)on  the  irrigation  district  act.  (Xainpa  & 
Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  r.  Brose,  83  Pac,,  400:  11  Idaho,  474.)  The  irri- 
gation district  must  snstain  the  burden  of  proof  in  confirmation  pro- 
ceedings. (Fallbrook  IiT.  Dist.  v.  Abila,  30  Tac.  703;  lOG  Calif., 
355.)  The  court  in  the  Idaho  case  last  cited  ludd  tliat  confirmation 
proceedings  mav  i:)recede  the  sale  of  bonds.  (Xampa  &  jVIeridian 
Irr.  Dist.  r.  Brose,  83  Pac.  400 :  11  Idaho,  474.) 

The  I'ight  of  review  on  confirmation  proceedings  is  confined  to  the 
evidence  contained  in  the  i-ecortl  of  tlie  board  and  brought  before 
the  court.  If  the  person  controverting  the  findings  of  the  board 
wishes  to  have  the  facts  reviewed,  he  must  cause  a  record  of  the 
evidence  to  be  l)rouaht  l)efore  the  court.  (In  re  Board  of  Directors 
of  Wenatchee  liec.  Dist.  v.  Kimball,  157  Pac,  38,  40;  01  Wash.,  GO.) 

Appellate  pi'oceedmgs. — The  earlier  irrigation  district  laws  pro- 
vided for  appeal  from  the  decree  in  confirmation  within  the  brief 
period  of  10  days.  The  newer  statutes  have  tended  to  grant  a  longer 
period  for  appeal.  The  limitation  imposed  by  statute  has  been  nni- 
formlv  uphelcl  by  the  courts.  (Palmdal^  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Rathke,  27  Pac, 
783:  10  Calif.,  358;  O'Neill  v.  Yellowstone,  Irr.  Dist.,  121  Pac,  283; 
44  JNIont.,  402;  Imperial  Land  Co.  v.  Imperial  Irr.  Dist.,  161  Pac, 
113:  173  Calif.  (lOlG),  G60.)  All  parties  are  preclnded  from  object- 
ing to  the  decree  rendered  unless  appeal  is  taken  within  the  period 
prescribed  by  the  legislature.  No  period  contained  in  any  act  has 
been  held  to  be  so  brief  as  to  be  nnreasonable  and  on  such  ground 
unconstitutional. 

Yalidity  of  con^fiTvuttion  proceedmqs. — In  the  year  following  the 
]>assat>e  of  the  California  confirmation  law^  the  supi-eme  court  of 
that  State  considered  the  eifect  and  constitutionality  of  the  act  and 
declared  that  the  statute  set  np  a  proceeding  in  rem,  and  hence  all 
the  world  is  bound  although  personal  service  was  not  given  of  the 
adjudication.  The  decision  was  that  of  Crall  v.  Board  of  Directors  of 
Poso  Irr.  Dist.  (26  Pac,  707:  87  Calif.,  140). 

Federal  Supreme  Court  douhffid  of  decree. — Shortly  afterwards 
the  case  of  Modesto  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Tregea  (26  Pac,  237;  88  Calif.,  334) 
was  decided  by  the  same  coui't  with  identical  effect  as  to  the  confirma- 
tion act.  The  defendant  in  the  latter  case,  however,  sued  out  a  writ 
of  error  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  upon  the  ground 
that  the  operation  of  the  statute  nesulted  in  depriving  him  of  i")rop- 
erty  without  due  process  of  law.  (Tregea  v.  Modesto  Irr.  Dist., 
164U.  S.,  170.) 

Mr.  Justice  Brewer,  rendering  the  majority  opinion,  declared 
that  at  the  outset  "  we  are  confronted  with  the  question  whether,  in 
advance  of  the  issue  of  bonds  and  before  any  obligation  has  been 
assumed  by  the  district,  there  is  a  case  or  controversy  with  the  op- 
posing parties,  such  as  can  be  submitted  to  and  can  compel  judicial 
consideration  and  judgment."     (Id.,  p.  185.)     The  court  pointed  out 

1G0047— 20 4 


50  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION  DISTRICT  LAWS. 

that  unless  the  board  should  proceed  with  tlie  exercise  of  the  power 
to  issue  bonds  the  labor  of  the  court  would  be  spent  in  determining 
"  a  barren  right — a  purely  moot  question,"  and  took  the  view  that 
the  Federal  Supreme  Court  is  not  concerned  with  any  question  as  to 
Avhat  a  State  may  require  of  its  courts  nor  what  measures  a  State 
"  may  adopt  for  securing  evidence  of  the  regularity  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  its  municipal  corporations,"  and  moreover' said: 

It  may  well  be  cionbtetl  whether  the  adjudicatiou  really  binds  anybody. 
Sni^pose  the  judgment  of  tlie  court  be  that  the  proceedings  are  irregular,  and 
that  no  power  has  been  by  them  vested  in  the  district  board,  and  yet  notwith- 
standing such  decision  the  board  issues,  as  provided  by  the  act,  the  negotiable 
bonds  of  the  district,  will  a  bona  fide  purchaser  of  those  bonds  be  estopped  by 
that  .iudgment  from  recovering  on  the  bonds  against  the  district?  The  doc- 
trine of  lis  pendens  does  not  apply.  Neither  is  any  such  adjudication  binding, 
in  respect  to  negotial)le  paper  unless  the  party  purchases  with  knowledge  of 
the  suit  or  the  decree.     *     *     * 

But  if  a  judgment  in  such  a  proceeding  as  this  can  not  be  invoked  by  tlie 
district  as  res  judicata  in  an  action  brought  against  it  by  the  holders  of  i)onds 
thereafter  wrongfully  issued,  can  a  judgment  in  favor  of  the  power  be  invoked 
by  the  holder  of  such  bonds  as  conclusive  upon  the  district  upon  the  ground 
of  res  judicata?  In  order  to  create  estoppel  by  judgment  must  there  not  be 
mutuality?  We  do  not  mean  to  intimate  that  it  may  not  have  effect  as  evi- 
dence, like  the  certificate  of  an  auditor  declared  by  a  legislature  to  be  con- 
clusive, but  is  it  not  simplv  as  evidence  and  not  as  res  judicata?  *  *  * 
(Id.,  pp.  1S7.  188.) 

It  should  be  noted,  hov\'ever,  that  the  court  did  not  approach  the 
view  that  the  confirmation  proceeding  was  nugatory,  although  it 
declined  to  consider  the  doctrine  of  res  judicata  as  applicable  conse- 
{juent  upon  the  decree.  The  court's  view  is  that  the  proceeding  is 
a  statutory  method  of  securing  evidence,  and,  from  tlie  context,  ap- 
parently conclusive  evidence,  of  the  facts  covered  by  the  decree. 
To  quote  the  conclusion  reached : 

It  seems  to  us  that  this  proceeding  is.  after  all,  nothing  but  one  to  secure 
evidence,  that  in  the  secui-ing  of  such  evidence  no  right  protected  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  invaded,  that  the  State  may  determine 
for  itself  in  what  way  it  will  secure  evidence  of  the  regularity  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  any  of  its  municipal  corporations,  and  that  unless  in  the  course 
of  such  proceedings  some  constitutional  right  is  denied  to  the  individual,  this 
court  can  not  interfere  on  the  ground  that  the  evidence  may  thereafter  be 
used  in  some  further  action  in  which  there  are  adversary  claims.  (Id., 
p.  189.) 

Justices  Harlan,  Gray,  and  Brown  dissented  upon  the  ground  that 
it  was  the  duty  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  determine  the  Federal  ques- 
tion raised  by  the  pleadings  and  determined  by  the  judgment  of  the 
State  court,  and  further  expressed  the  oj^inion  that  the  conclusions 
of  the  State  court  should  be  sustained  and  its  judgment  af- 
firmed upon  the  principles  the  same  day  announced  in  the  case 
of  Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Bradley  (164  U.  S.,  112).  wherein,  as 
will  be  pointed  out  in  the  discussion  of  the  general  subject  of  con- 
stitutionality the  irrigation  district  law  of  California  was  fully 
upheld.^ 

State  courts  all  uphold  adjudication. — Some  critics  have  regarded 
the  foregoing  vieAv  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  as  in  the 
nature  of  obiter  dictum,  for  the  reason  that  the  writ  of  error  was. 
dismissed  for  lack  of  jurisdiction  rather  than  decided  upon  its 
merits. 

*  Both  of  these  cases  were  decided  by  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  on  Nov.  16,  189(5. 


COXFIRMATIOX   PEOCEEDIXGS.  51 

Be  this  as  it  nia3%  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  Brewer  has  been 
foHowed  by  nono  of  the  many  decisions  in  State  supreme  courts 
npon  appeal  froui  conlirmation  proceedin«:s  below.  In  fact  the  view 
in  Tregea  decision  has  been  expressly  lepudiated  by  the  Supremo 
Court  of  California  after  most  careful  consideration  of  the  opinion 
in  that  case.    The  court  makes  the  following  statement : 

It  is  to  be  regretted  tliat  the  opportunity  did  not  present  itself  to  that 
court  at  that  time  to  test  the  validity  of  the  act  in  the  crucible  furnished 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  rniled  Stiites.  <rivin^  the  act  the  construction  i»laced 
upon  it  by  this  court.  But  liy  our  decisions  the  consliiutionallty  of  the  act 
has  been  directly  and  impliedly  passed  upon  ;ind  approved  more  than  once, 
and  we  will  not  now  enter  into  a  discussion  of  that  question.  (I'eople  r. 
Linda  Vista  Irr.  I>ist.  01  I'ac,  SG,  88;  128  Calif.,  477;  and  see  also  Title  & 
Doc.  Kestn.  Co.  (".  Kerrigan,  88  Pac,  3-50;  l-'iO  Calif.,  280.) 

Quotation  might  be  made  from  a  score  of  State  courts  of  last 
resort.  Among  the  cases  upholding  the  confirmation  statutes,  these 
may  be  noted :  Kinkade  v.  Witherop  (69  Pac,  399;  29  Wash.,  10)  ; 
Nainpa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Brose  (83  Pac,  499;  11  Idaho,  474)  ; 
Anderson  v.  Grand  Valley  Irr.  Dist.  (85  Pac,  313;  35  Colo.,  525)  ; 
Alfalfa  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Collins  (64  N.  W..  1086;  46  Nebr.,  411)  ;  Han- 
son V.  Kittatas  Eec  Dist.  (134  Pac,  1083;  75  Wash.,  297). 

Efeet  of  fraud  upon  confirmation  proceedings. — The  California 
case  of  People  v.  Perris  Irr.  Dist.  (76  Pac.  381;  142  Calif.,  601), 
left  the  law  as  to  the  eft'ect  of  fraud  in  the  formation  of  irrigation 
districts  upon  the  confirmation  decree  in  such  shape  as  to  afl'ord 
diminished  assurance  to  the  creditors  of  these  public  corporations. 

In  the  case  of  Fogg  v.  Perris  Irr.  Dist.  (97  Pac.  316;  154  Calif., 
209).  however,  the  law  was  satisfactorily  clarified  in  the  conclusion 
reached,  as  follows: 

It  could  not  have  lieen  contemplated  or  intendeil  that  the  existence  of  such 
fraud  would  always  be  open  to  inquiry,  notwitlistandiiig  such  adjudication, 
nor  that,  if  subsequently  shown,  it  would  prove  that  the  court,  in  the  conlirma- 
tion proceedings,  had  no  jurisdiction  to  act  at  all,  and  that  its  decree  was  void. 
We  tliink,  therefore,  that  upon  the  face  of  the  record,  jurisdiction  of  the  orig- 
inal proceeding  was  shown  to  exist,  and  that  the  fraud  alleged,  although  sufTi- 
cient  to  have  made  the  oi-ganization  invalid  if  shown  tipon  the  hearing  of  the 
proceedings  for  contirmation,  was  not  sufficient  to  deprive  the  court  in  that 
proceeding  of  jurisdiction  to  make  the  adjudication  whicli  is  here  sought  to  be 
vacated.     (Id.,  p.  318.) 

Binding  character  of  decree — Effect  upon  State. — The  confirma- 
tory decree  is  held  to  have  the  broadest  possible  effect  by  all  the  State 
courts  which  have  passed  upon  the  question.  The  fact  that  no  con- 
test is  made  and  that  service  is  secured  by  publication  does  not  di- 
minish its  binding  character. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  California  holds  that  ''such  a  judgment  is 
binding  upon  the  whole  world."  (People  v.  Linda  Vista  Irr.  Dist.. 
61  Pac,  86,  88;  128  Calif.,  477.) 

As  regards  the  etfect  of  a  decree  in  confirmation  upon  the  govern- 
ment of  the  State  wherein  the  district  is  situated,  it  was  held  in  the 
same  case  as  follows: 

We  can  not  imagine  a  judgment  in  rem  to  which  the  State  woidd  not  be  a 
party.  *  ■■'  '^  When  we  look  at  the  i)uri»ose  of  this  act,  as  indicated  by  its 
face  and  as  more  clearly  indicated  by  the  decisions  of  this  court,  it  is  apparent 
that  tliere  nevei-  was  any  int(>ntion  upon  the  part  of  tlie  State  legislature  that 
the  State  should  l>e  allowed  by  quo  warranto,  «»r  in  any  other  way,  to  attack 
the  organization  of  these  districts  after  a  judgment  of  confirmation  had  been 


52  HANDBOOK    OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

had.     If  that   couhl  be  done,  then  the  entire  confirmatory  act  is  nseless  legis- 
lation— a  mere  nnllity.     (Id.,  p.  89.) 

This  doctrine  has  been  followed  by  the  State  courts  without  excep- 
tion. The  Idaho  cases  of  Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  ^^  Brose  (83 
Pac,  499;  11  Idaho,  474)  and  Progressive  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Anderson 
(114  Pac,  16;  19  Idaho,  604)  may  well  be  read.  In  the  last-named 
case  the  j^roceedings  were  brought  for  the  confirmation  of  the  ap- 
portionment of  benefit  assessments. 

Revenue, 

GENERAL, 

Provisio>is  for  jrvemte  fundamental. — The  irrigation  district  law 
is  primarily  a  means  for  carrying  out  irrigation  plans  and  to  that 
end  for  establishing  between  the  district  and  its  creditors  funda- 
mentally correct  relations.  As  such  the  crux  of  the  law  obviously 
rests  in  the  adequacy  of  the  methods  and  the  soundness  of  the  basis 
for  revenue  which  is  provided. 

In  the  relations  between  the  debtor  and  creditor  it  is  fundamental 
that  the  security  of  the  creditor  shall  be  primarily  assured,  and  that 
the  lands  of  the  district  in  their  entirety  shall  secure  the  debt.  It 
is  the  province  and  duty  of  the  district  and  its  officers  and  the 
supervisory  State  officials,  wherever  there  be  such,  to  assume  all  the 
lu'oject  hazards  rather  than  to  shift  upon  the  creditors  any  portion 
of  risks  of  the  enterj^rise. 

Responsihillty  of  district  and  creditoi'S  is  not  joint. — It  is  difficult 
to  conceive  of  an  irrigation  district'  system  based  upon  any  form 
of  joint  responsibility  between  the  district  and  its  creditors  as  to 
the  feasibility  of  the  plans  or  as  to  the  management  of  district 
affairs.  It  is  clearly  the  business  of  the  local  people  to  make  them- 
selves thoroughly  conversant  with  the  conditions  of  soil,  climate,- 
water  sui^ply,  markets,  and  the  effect  of  the  engineering  and  legal 
difficulties,  subject  to  supervision  of  State  officials,  and  also  to  safe- 
guard the  expenditure  of  the  moneys  in  construction  work  and  in 
the  general  conduct  of  the  project.  So  long  as  the  district  has  com- 
plete conti'ol  of  the  system  they  should  bear  full  responsibility  for  its 
success  or  failure. 

A  tendency  to  he  avoided. — There  has  been  a  tendency,  however, 
in  some  quarters,  to  release  tracts  of  land  from  liability  upon  pay- 
ment of  their  pro])ortionate  part  of  the  debt.  This  tendency  has 
been  shown  in  legislation  in  Montana  and  Colorado,  and  in  a  decision 
of  a  Federal  district  court  in  Colorado.  Both  the  statutory  provi- 
sions and  the  decision  referred  to  will  be  discussed  below  under  the 
head  of  assessment  and  levy.     (Infra,  p.  57.) 

Any  statutory  provision  or  decision  of  court  which  tends  toward 
lessening  the  security  of  the  creditor  by  loosening  the  obligation 
which  the  district  lands  as  a  body  owe  to  the  creditors  is  pernicious. 
If  there  can  be  apportioned  against  tracts  of  comparatively  small 
value,  but  still  deemed  irrigable,  a  proportionate  part  of  the  debt, 
and  if,  in  case  such  tracts  are  unable  to  pay  the  assessments  levied 
against  them,  the  portion  of  the  debt  so  assessed  may  not  then  be 
collected  bv  assessments  against  other  lands  of  greater  value,  the 
security  of  the  creditors  is  greatly  diminished. 


REVEXUE,  53 

Importance  as  regards  drahiage. — This  is  particnlaily  important 
as  regards  drainage.  As  pointed  out,  in  another  connection  seepage 
troubles  in  o-onoral  must  be  expected,  and  if  tlie  hinds  of  the  district 
in  their  entirety  are  not  ])ehind  tlie  debts  of  the  district  for  assess- 
ment, reassessment  and,  if  need  be,  sale,  the.  creditor  must,  if  he 
be  wise,  ascertain  at  his  peril  and  in  advance,  what  lands  the  direc- 
tors ai-e  going  to  declare  iri'igable.  the  worth  of  all  tracts,  what  the 
possibilities  of  seei^age  troubles  are,  and  what  the  people,  in  the 
absence  of  responsibility  by  the  district  as  an  entirety,  will  do  to 
afford  drainage  to  the  threatened  areas. 

Such  clearly  is  a  burden  that  the  creditor  can  not  carry  successfully' 
and  will  not  willingly  assume,  for  under  such  a  law  he  must  under- 
take a  joint  risk  with  the  district  landowners  without  having  any 
share  in  the  power  of  choice  in  any  vital  question.  This  would  strike 
at  the  root  of  the  present  irrigation  district  plan. 

Where  the  eguities  are  to  he  found  in  case  of  loss. — It  must  be 
admitted  that  Avhere  the  owners  of  district  lands  have  suifered  un- 
foreseen hardships  and  losses,  either  through  miscalculation  as  to 
the  feasibility  of  a  project  or  through  the  mismanagement  or  the 
fraud  of  the  promotei's  or  officers  of  the  district,  there  is  a  resulting 
injustice  to  the  morally  innocent  which  may  appear  to  legislatures 
or  courts  persuasive  toward  lessening  the  obligations  of  the  district 
to  its  creditors.  As  between  the  district  and  the  creditor,  however, 
it  would  appear  that  the  equities  of  the  latter  are  morally  superior 
under  such  circumstances,  since  it  is  the  failure  of  the  district  to 
take  steps  necessary  .to  guard  against  mischance  and  loss  thafi 
results  in  the  reassessment  of  the  more  valuable  lands. 

Advantages  to  the  district  of  unified  ftnancwl  respottsihility. — 
Moreover,  while  in  some  particular  instance  a  plan  for  apportion- 
ment of  the  debt  may  relieve  landowners  who  have  made  a  mistake, 
yet  to  landowners  as  a  class  desiring  credit  and  legitimate  oppor- 
tunity to  develo]:)  their  property  and  secure  the  use  of  water,  and  to 
the  public  which  is  universally  held  to  be  benefited  by  the  develop- 
ment of  irrigation,  such  relaxing  of  the  law  works  an  injustice  by 
destroyina'  credit.  Furthermore,  even  in  the  consideration  of  dis- 
trict affairs  from  the  narrow  standpoint  and  irrespective  of  credit, 
harmony  is  more  apt  to  be  secured,  especially  in  drainage  matters, 
as  the  result  of  all  being  "in  together"  and  interested  in  the  success 
of  each  landowner,  or  at  least  in  the  preservation  of  the  paying 
capacity  of  each  tract  of  land  in  the  district.  If  the  bonded  debt 
can  be  apportioned  and  the  maximum  collectible  from  any  one  tract 
is  the  amount  apportioned,  the  mutual  interest  is  destroyed  and  those 
who  "  do  not  think  the  seepage  is  liurting  them  "  are  apt  to  be  slow 
to  vote  drainaoe.  The  result  is  likely  to  be  delay  and  loss  of  crops 
and  credit.  The  man  whose  land  is  more  favorably  situated  may 
find  himself  by  no  means  imumne  from  financial  loss  due  to  the  spread 
of  the  seepage  difficulties  or  at  any  rate  the  deterioration  of  the  lo- 
cality. 

Under  such  circumstances  the  creditor's  position  Avould  at  best 
be  that  of  receiving  but  a  percentaae  of  the  amount  due  him  and 
his  bonds  would  be  depreciated,  while  irrigation  securities  as  a  class 
would  thus  be  adversely  affected. 

A  irord  on  cooperation. — Such  commimity  of  interest  among  ir- 
rigation farmers  is  diametrically  the  reverse  of  an  injustice  to  the 


54  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

user  of  water.  It  is  rather  an  asset  to  him  if  properly  understood. 
It  is  the  principle  which  raises  the  farmers  who  practice  irrigation 
to  a  higher  level  in  some  respects  than  their  brothers  in  the  humid 
parts  of  the  world.  Irrigation  forces  close  cooperation  in  the  man- 
agement of  the  water  supply  and  thus  invites  it  in  other  affairs.  This 
circumstance  is  destined  to  make  those  who  irrigate  the  leaders  in 
modern  agricultural  cooperation. 

Sir  William  Willcocks.  formerly  director  general  of  reservoir 
studies  in  Egypt  and  consulting  engineer  to  the  Turkish  Government 
in  Mesopotamia,  has  well  said: 

The  less<)ns  of  order  and  method  are  taught  so  thoroughly  by  irrigation  that 
it  is  not  to  he  .sui'prised  at  tliat  all  the  ancient  civilizations  of  the  world 
had  their  birth  in  the  irrigated  valleys  of  the  great  Old  World  rivers.  Un- 
civilized men  could  live  in  woods,  and  partially  civilized  ones  in  desert  oases, 
but  to  exist  in  a  country  needing  irrigation  men  had  to  be  disciplined  and  to 
be  amenable  to  laws  and  regulations.  When  hundreds  and  thousands  of  families 
had  at  first  to  learn  the  laws  of  nature,  then  apply  them,  and  then  live  in 
accord  with  one  another,  in  order  to  insure  the  irrigation  and  drainage  of 
their  individual  holdings,  true  civilization  took  its  birth.  (From  The  Garden 
of  Eden  to  the  Crossing  of  the  Jordan,  printed  by  the  French  Institute  of 
Oriental  Archaeology. ) 

Two  instruments  for  revenue  collection. — Revenue,  under  the  irri- 
gation district  laws,  may  be  raised  in  two  ways : 

{a)  By  assessment  and  levy  by  the  district  or  the  county  or  both 
cooperating  under  the  law  in  manner  similar  to  that  employed  by 
other  classes  of  public  corporations. 

(&)  By  the  imposition  of  tolls  and  charges,  for  operating  expenses 
only,  collected  in  connection  with  the  delivery  of  water  to  the  dis- 
trict lands.    These  two  means  will  be  discussed  in  the  following  pages. 

ASSESSMENT  AND   LEVY. 

Much  the  more  important  of  the  two  methods  of  securing  revenue 
is  that  of  assessment  and  levy.  It  is  provided  that  the  amounts  due 
to  bondholders  or  to  the  United  States  are  to  be  collected  in  this 
manner,  and  in  all  States  except  Texas  all  moneys  required  for  opera- 
tion and  maintenance  may  thus  be  collected,  tolls  and  charges  being 
generally  an  alternative  means  for  securing  the  costs  of  running  the 
system. 

The  provisions  of  law  prescribing  the  statutory  machinery  for 
assessment  and  levy  for  irrigation  district  purposes  will  not  be  de- 
tailed in  the  present  connection.  These  provisions  being  of  much 
importance,  they  are  set  forth  rather  more  fully  than  other  portions 
of  the  irrigation  district  laws  under  the  headings  of  the  various 
respective  States. 

The  agenmes  for  collection. — ^The  States  differ  widely  as  to  the 
agencies  and  means  for  assessment  and  levy,  some  statutes  providing 
for  irrigation  district  officers  and  separate  machinery  for  assessment 
and  collection,  while  others  employ  in  full  or  in  part  the  officers 
and  machinery  of  the  county  or  counties  in  which  the  district  lands 
are  situated.  The  county  in  which  the  major  portion  of  the  lands 
lie  or  the  office  of  the  district  is  situated  has  in  such  case  the  central 
responsibility. 

Basis  and  measure  of  assessment. — Tlie  basis  for  valid  assessment, 
even  where  assessment  is  made  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  the 


ASSESSMENT  AND  LEVY.  55 

land,  is  the  fact  of  benefit  to  the  market  value  of  the  land  assessed. 
(Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Bradley,  164  U.  S.,  112.) 

The  measure  of  the  amount  of  assessment  differs  widely  among 
the  irrigation-district  States.  Under  the  California,  Nebraska,  and 
Okhihoina  laws  assessments  are  proportioned  to  the  value  of  the 
real  property  of  the  district  less  the  value  of  the  improvements  placed 
thereon. 

In  Texas  the  assessments  are  made  in  accordance  with  the  valua- 
tion of  all  propert}^  real  and  personal,  witliin  the  district. 

The  Utah  criterion  is  the  value  per  acre-foot  of  water  allotted 
by  the  State  engineer  to  district  lands  which  may  vary  in  different 
iniits  of  the  same  district. 

In  Arizona,  Colorado,  Montana,  New  Mexico,  Oregon,  and  Wyo- 
ming provision  is  made  either  that  the  irrigable  lands  shall  be  assessed 
at  the  same  rate  per  acre  or  that  the  lands  for  purposes  of  assessment 
shall  be  valued  at  the  same  rate  per  acre. 

Assessments  in  Idaho,  Nevada,  North  and  South  Dakota,  and 
Washington  are  made  in  accordance  with  the  benefit  derived  by  the 
respective  lands  to  be  taxed. 

Of  the  various  measures  of  assessment,  it  is  believed  that  the  bene- 
fit test  is  preferable.  There  are  in  some  localities  inferior  lands, 
which  nevertheless  can  be  irrigated  for  pasturage  or  otherwise, 
which  can  not  stand  the  same  flat  rate  of  chaige  as  the  ordinary  lands 
of  the  district.  These  lands,  however,  for  pasturage,  it  may  be,  can 
help  sustain  the  burden  of  the  construction  of  works,  and  their 
irrigation  wwij  be  an  economic  gain,  or  even  render  feasible  a  ques- 
tionable undertaking.  There  are,  moreover,  in  many  localities  to  be 
irrigated  lands  which  at  the  formation  of  an  irrigation  district 
have  a  prior  right,  supplying  water  for  only  a  portion  of  an  irriga- 
tion season.  Such  lands  should  be  compellable  to  be  brought  within 
the  boundaries  of  the  district  and  should  be  taxable  for  a  supple- 
mentary water  supply,  being  benefited  by  the  increase  of  the  period 
of  productiveness  and  the  crops  which  may  be  secured.  The  bring- 
ing of  these  lands  into  the  district  is  best  and  most  equitably  accom- 
plislied  inider  a  benefit  method  of  assessment  wherebj'  they  would 
be  charged  only  for  the  supplemental  supply. 

Moreover,  necessary  drainage  works  may  in  general  best  be  se- 
cured, and  the  landowners  are,  we  believe,  most  apt  to  cooperate  in 
drainage  work  under  a  law  which  provides  for  assessment  in  propor- 
tion to  benefits -obtained  rather  than  under  the  flat  rate  or  ad  valorem 
principle.^ 

Assessment  laws  valid — Ad  valorem  method. — Assessment  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  value  of  the  lands  was  early  attacked  under  the 
California  act.  It  was  sustained  by  the  supreme  court  of  that  State 
in  the  case  of  In  re  Madera  Irr.  Dist.  Bonds  (28  Pac,  272 ;  92  Calif., 
296). 

The  same  method  was  also  fully  upheld  by  the  Federal  Supreme 
Court  in  the  case  of  Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Bradley^  Therein  the 
court  found  that  it  was  "  plain  that  the  fact  of  the  amount  of  benefits 
is  not  susceptible  of  that  accurate  demonstration  which  pertains  to 
demonstration  in  geometry.     Some  means  of  arriving  at  this  amount 

1  In  this  connection  the  foregoing  discussion  of  drainage  by  irrigation  districts   (p.  26) 
should  be  noted. 


56  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

must  be  used,  and  the  same  method  may  be  more  or  less  accurate  in 
different  cases  involving  different  facts."  The  conclusion  arrived  at 
was  that  the  ad  valorem  method  was  clearly  no  violation  of  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution,  but  rather  a  matter  of  detail  "  open  to  the  discre- 
tion of  the  State  legislature,  and  with  which  this  court  ought  to  have 
nothing  to  do."  The  court  admits  that  "  the  way  of  arriving  at  the 
amount  (of  assessment)  ma}^  be  in  some  instances  inequitable  and 
unequal,  but  that  is  far  from  rising  to  the  level  of  a  constitutional 
problem  and  far  from  the  case  of  taking  property  without  due  process 
oflaw."^    (164  U.  S.,  112,  176,  177.) 

The  Nebraska  law  for  assessment  in  pi'opoi-tion  to  realty  values, 
exclusive  of  improvements,  has  several  times  been  declared  consti- 
tutional bv  the  supreme  court  of  that  State.  (See  Board  of  Alfalfa 
Irr.  Dist.  v.  Collins.  61  N.  W.,  1986;  46  Xebr..  411.) 

Assessment  of  ^personal  property  upheld  in  Texas. — The  Texas 
statute  for  assessment  according  to  the  value  of  all  personal  as  well 
as  real  property  in  the  district  has  been  held  constitutional  b}'  the 
supreme  court  of  that  State.  A  constitutional  amendment,  referred 
to  under  the  special  discussion  of  the  Texas  law,  authorizes  conserva- 
tion districts,  including  levee  and  irrigation  districts,  to  assume  in- 
debtedness above  the  former  limit  of  district  liability.  The  decision 
was  made  in  the  case  of  a  levee  district,  under  a  law  which,  like  the 
irrigation  act,  requires  both  realty  and  personalty  to  be  assessed  ad 
valorem,  and  is  clearly  applicable  to  irrigation  and  other  types  of 
districts  when  brought  under  the  conservation  district  act.  The  lat- 
ter act  prescribes  equitable  assessment,  leaving  the  method  to  the 
irrigation  district  and  other  public  corporation  laws. 

The  court  held  as  follows : 

It  is  clear  that  the  conservation  aniendnient  does  not  undertalve  to  prescribe 
any  given  rule  for  making  the  apportionment.     *     *     * 

It  can  not  be  said  as  a  matter  of  law  that  a  rule  which  apportions  taxes  of 
this  character  according  to  the  value  of  the  i^roperty  affected  is  one  plainly 
arbitrary  and  unfair.  It  is  a  veteran  rule  for  the  apportionment  of  property 
taxes,  sanctioned  by  inmiemorial  usage  and  universally  applied.  It  is  the  one 
most  familiar  to  the  people.  Its  general  justice  is  not  open  to  challenge.  It  is 
an  approved  method  for  the  apportionment  of  taxes  of  this  Ivind.  Its  adoption 
was  a  matter  of  legislative  discretion. 

That  the  Canales  Act  permits  tlie  taxation  of  other  than  real  property  within 
a  levee  district  for  the  purpose  of  the  improvement  presents  no  constitutional 
objection.  It  can  not  be  said  that  personal  property  situated  within  such  a 
district  does  not  derive  a  certain  benefit  from  the  improvement.  It,  with  real 
property,  is  equally  subject  to  damage  from  overflow,  and  with  perfect  justness 
may  be  taxed  for  such  an  improvement.  (Dallas  Count.v  Levee  District  v. 
Looney,  Dec.  IS,  1918,  unreported  when  this  material  was  completed.) 

Flat  rate  and  heneflt  assessment  held  valid. — Constitutionality  of 
assessment  upon  a  flat  rate  basis  or  a  statutory  requirement  that  the 
assessor  value  all  district  lands  equally  has  seldom  been  construed 
by  the  courts. 

A  law  requiring  assessment  of  all  lands  equall}^  was  held  constitu- 
tional by  the  Utah  Supreme  Court  in  Limdberg  v.  Green  River  Irr. 
Dist.  (119  Pac,  1039). 1 

The  benefit  criterion  for  assessment  has  been  often  declared  con- 
stitutional in  all  forms  of  public  corporations  created  for  local  im- 
provement for  public  purposes.    Irrigation  district  cases  are  Pioneer 

1  The  decision  related  to  the  law  of  1909  (ch.  74,  sec.  19)  rather  than  the  present  Utah 
act  which,  as  above  stated,  prescribes  a  different  rule  of  assessment. 


,    ASSESSMENT  AND  LEVY.  57 

V.  Bradbury  (08  l*ac.,  295,  301;  8  Idaho,  310)  ;  Ore<>-on  Short  Line 
R.  E.  V.  Pioneer  Irr.  Dist.  (102  Pac,  904;  IG  Idaho,  578)  :  Cannon  v. 
Hood  River  Irr.  Dist.  (154  Pac,  397;  79  Oreg.  (191G),  71). 

Rchuuit'ion  from  linhUity  of  district  as  a  whole. — Turning  now  to 
modifications  of  the  rule  that  the  hinds  of  the  district  shall  be  and 
remain  liable. for  the  debts  of  the  district,  discussion  of  which  in  detail 
was  postponed  fi'om  the  opening  i)aragrai)hs  upon  revenue,  refer- 
ence is  made  to  ceitain  provisions  of  the  Montana  law  of  1917. 

jSame — Defect  in  Montaitet.  act. — 'J'he  pai'agraph  in  the  Montana  law 
which  outlines  the  lien  which  shall  form  the  security  behind  the 
bonds  of  the  district  or  behind  the  contract  with  the  United  States, 
as  the  case  may  be.  contains  the  provision  that  in  the  resolution  pro- 
viding for  the  issuance  of  bonds  and  in  the  proceedings  for  confirma- 
tion thereof,  the  amounts  to  be  paid  to  the  purchasers  of  bonds  or  to 
the  United  States,  shall  "  be  apportioned  on  each  40-acre  tract  of 
land  and  every  separately  owned  subdivision  thereof,  within  said 
district,  b}^  dividing  the  total  of  the  principal  of  said  indebtedness  by 
the  number  of  acres  of  land  within  the  district  actually  irrigable  from 
its  system  and  works,  *  *  *."  Moreover,  every  acre  of  land  must 
be  assessed  for  its  e<]ual  proportion  of  the  debt  and  the  interest,  and 
any  owner  at  the  time  of  payment  of  his  annual  taxes  may  pay  to  the 
county  treasurer  the  total  sums  assessed  against  his  lands  with  in- 
terest to  the  end  of  the  current  year. 

If  he  so  pays  his  land  shall  be  discharged  from  the  lien  of  the 
bonds  and  for  further  assessments  for  interest  thereon,  remaining  of 
course  liable  for  annual  maintenance  assessments;  and  the  moneys 
so  paid  are  placed  in  a  sinking  fund.     (Mont.  L.  1917,  p.  333.) 

There  are  also  provisions  for  the  distribution  of  the  lien  of  the 
debt,  and  for  the  making  of  a  certificate  showing  the  area  actually 
irrigable  from  the  works,  and  requiring  that  the  levy  of  the  tax  and 
special  assessment,  or  the  resolution  for  the  spreading  of  the  assess- 
ment, shall  specifically  schedule  the  apportionment  of  the  lien  for 
the  bond  issue  on  each  40-acre  tract.  Similar  provisions  for  appor- 
tionment are  made  applicable  to  equalization  proceedings  and  to  the 
confirmation  of  the  lionds.     (L.  1917,  p.  335.) 

Modification  of  the  law  to  such  effect  could  not  constitutionally 
be  made  effective  to  release  lands  from  the  obligation  to  discharge 
bonds  outstanding  when  the  act  was  passed.  Hence  the  Montana 
law  provides  for  proceedings  by  the  district  to  avail  itself  of  the 
benefits  of  the  act,  the  filing  of  written  consent  of  all  bondholders 
being  expressly  a  prerequisite  thereto. 

But  as  to  all  bonds  to  be  issued  subsequently  the  clear  effect  of 
the  foregoing  j^rovisions  of  law  is  that  the  creditors  of  the  district, 
including  the  United  States,  may  be  limited  in  their  recourse  to  each 
individual  tract  as  a  separate  element  of  security.  The  district  as  a 
corporate  entity  Avould  undertake  no  entire  obligation  but  acts  in 
effect  as  the  collecting  agency  for  the  bondholders  of  the  United 
States,  the  individual  tracts  becoming  in  severalty  the  security. 

To  reiterate,  this  strikes  at  the  heart  of  the  irrigation  district  idea 
in  that  the  creditor,  in  order  to  be  safe,  must  investigate  every  acre  of 
land  and  assure  himself  that  all  the  lands  deemed  to  be  irrigable  are 
so  in  fact  and  are  actually  worth  the  apportioned  amount  of  the 
delit.     The  bondholders  under  this  law   would  become  their  own 


58  HANDBOOK   OF   lERIGATIOlST   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

insurers  against  the  contingency  that  there  are  lands  of  the  district 
which  may  become  damaged  by  seepage  and  alkali;  for  under  the 
law  the  other  landowners  will  lack  the  customary  interest  in  seeing 
that  jDroper  drainage  facilities  are  constructed  and  made  effective. 

Smne — AHzona  provision  for  discharge  of  oMigation. — Arizona 
apportionment  provisions  prescribe  that  upon  full  payment  on  behalf 
of  any  tract  the  treasurer  shall  issue  a  certificate  to  such  effect  which 
shall  operate  as  a  release  "  except  in  the  event  of  a  default  of  a  dis- 
trict in  payment  of  such  bonds  at  maturity,  taxes  may  then  be  levied 
on  such  tract  or  tracts  of  land  to  meet  such  deficiency,  provided, 
however,  should  property  so  released  be  taxed  to  pay  such  deficiency 
it  shall  be  entitled  to  all  benefits  accruing  from  the  purchase  of 
lands  sold  at  tax  sales."    (Ariz.  L.,  1915,  2d  spcl  sess.,  p.  83.) 

This  is  an  improvement  upon  the  Montana  provision,  but  gives 
no  assurance  as  regards  the  full  payment  to  the  bondholders  of 
interest  prior  to  maturity. 

Same — Release  from  deht  for  refunding  hands — Colorado. — The 
Colorado  law  for  refunding  bond  issues  provides  for  the  ascertain- 
ment by  the  assessor  of  the  proportionate  liability  of  any  tract  of  land 
by  dividing  the  amount  of  the  refunding  bonds  by  the  acreage  of  the 
district  and  multiplving  the  quotient  by  the  acreage  of  the  land- 
owner applying  for  relief.  Upon  the  assessor's  certificate  as  to  the 
same  to  the  treasurer,  the  landowner  secures  relief  from  taxation 
by  tendering  to  the  treasurer  refunding  bonds,  the  principal  of  which 
equals  the  amount  found  as  his  share  of  the  debt.  (Colo.  L.,  1917, 
ch.  85,  p.  318.) 

Same — Dal-ota  p7'ovisio7is. — The  provisions  in  North  and  South 
Dakota  for  relief  of  lands  "  subirrigated  to  the  extent  that  w  ater  is 
no  longer  of  any  benefit  thereon  for  irrigation  purposes,"  from 
assessment  until  drainage  is  supplied,  is  too  lenient.  Subirrigation 
often  obviates  the  necessity  for  irrigation  without  injuring  greatly 
the  crop-producing  powers  of  the  district.  In  such  cases,  too,  the 
water  supply  used  to  produce  the  crops  comes  from  the  irrigation 
system.  This  provision  tends  to  lessen  the  security  of  the  bond- 
holders and  decrease  the  common  interest  in  drainage  measures. 
(N.  Dak.  L.,  1917,  p.  131;  S.  Dak.  L.,  1917,  p.  550.) 

Duty  to  reassess  lands  upheld  on  appeal. — The  question  of  whether 
lands  are  to  be  free  from  further  assessment  for  the  failure  of  other 
district  lands  to  furnish  the  assessments  levied  upon  the  latter,  or 
whether  such  lands  are  exempt  when  the  regular  proportionate 
amount  required  under  just  and  legal  assessment  proceedings  has 
been  paid  for  them,  was  directly  raised  in  a  case  arising  in  United 
States  District  Court  for  Colorado. 

The  district  court,  basing  its  view  upon  the  distinction  between 
ordinary  taxation  and  the  assessment  by  the  district  for  the  local 
improvement  purpose  of  irrigation,  denied  the  power  of  the  district 
officials  to  assess  lands  for  the  failure  of  other  lands  to  produce  the 
amount  of  the  assessments.    The  court  held  as  follows : 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  I  am  of  tlie  opinion  that  the  annual  levies  required 
by  the  Colorado  act  are  not  to  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  levies  for  general 
taxes,  and  must  be  considered  as  assessments  to  pay  for  local  improvements, 
and  that  the  total  burden  thus  placed  upon  each  acre  must  be  reasonably 
proportionate  to  the  benefits  receivefl.  The  owners  can  not  be  taxed  dispro- 
portionately to  each  other.  (Authority  cited.)  Such  assessments  are  (mly  sus- 
tainable when  the  benefits  received  by  the  property  assessed  are  proportionate 


ASSESSMENT   AND   LEVY.  59 

to  the  l>urflpii  plafPd  upon  it.     (Authoritv  cited. )     fNorris  v.  ^lonteziuna  Valley 
Irr.  Dist.,  240  Fed.  Kep.,  825,  828.) 

Tliis  case,  liowever,  was  reversed  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals, 
Eighth  Circuit.  To  quote  from  the  majority  opinion  delivered  by 
Mr.  Justice  INIunger: 

The  scheme  disclosed  by  these  statutes  relating  to  irrigation  districts  looks 
to  uniformity  of  assessment  per  acre  for  the  payment  of  the  district's 
indebtedness,  but  they  also  provide  that  the  "  bonds,  and  the  interest  thereon, 
shall  be  paid  by  i-evenue  derived  from  an  annual  assessment  upon  the  real 
property  of  the  district,  and  the  real  property  of  the  district  shall  be  and 
remain  liable  to  be  assessed  for  such  payments  as  herein  provided " ;  also, 
the  county  boards  are  "  to  fix  the  rate  necessary  to  provide  the  amount  of 
money  required  to  pay  the  interest  and  principal  of  the  bonds  of  said  district 
as  the  same  shall  become  due."     *     *     * 

The  defendants  in  error  press  the  claim  that  a  reassessment  violates  the 
statutory  scheme  of  uniformity  of  taxation  on  each  acre  of  these  lands.  *  *  * 
The  legislature  is  presumed  to  have  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  under  any  system 
of  taxation  by  assessment  hitherto  devised  a  portion  of  the  taxpayers  neglect 
to  pay  the  taxes  levied  against  their  property  for  a  long  period  after  they 
become  due.  *  *  *  It  is  a  common  provision  in  the  State  constitutions 
and  statutes  that  as.sessments  or  levies  for  taxation  shall  be  uniform  upon 
the  same  class  of  subjects,  or  by  value.  Such  provisions  are  not  violated 
when,  after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable  time,  and  after  reasonable  efforts  have 
been  made  to  collect  the  first  levy,  an  additional  levy  is  made  upon  all  the 
property  in  the  district  because  of  the  failure  of  some  of  the  taxpayers 
to  pay  their  portions  of  the  tirst  levy.  (Norris  v.  Montezuma  Valley  Irr.  Dist., 
248  Fed.  Rep.,  369,  372,  373,  374.) 

The  court  held  the  bondholders  entitled  to  writ  of  mandamus  to 
compel  levy  of  assessment  to  meet  the  deficiency  in  payments  to  them. 

Apportiojwient  of  assessment  annuaUy  or  once  for  all. — Most  of 
the  State  laws  provide  for  annually  recurring  assessment  of  district 
lands.  This  might  be  deemed  necessary  in  the  case  of  ad  valorem 
assessment,  although  even  the  Texas  ad  valorem  law  provides  that 
the  tax  as  originally  levied  shall  remain  in  force  from  year  to  year 
until  a  new  levy  shall  be  made.  The  Idaho  law,  however,  providing 
for  assessment  upon  the  benefit  principle,  prescribes  that  after  the 
benefits  anticipated  from  any  bond  issue  are  ascertained  and  equal- 
ized, the  amount  so  apportioned  or  distributed  to  each  tract  shall 
be  and  remain  the  basis  for  fixing  all  future  annual  assessments. 
After  confirmation  of  the  assessment  and  apportionment,  no  change 
in  the  apportionment  can  be  made,  but  annual  lev}'  is  made  in  the 
same  proportion.  This  is  true  of  any  extra  levy  which  might  be 
necessary  to  meet  delinquencies  under  the  coexisting  provision  that 
all  district  lands  shall  be  and  remain  liable  to  be  assessed  for  the 
district  indebtedness. 

Idaho  flan  discussed. — This  plan  has  obvious  advantages.  It 
avoids  annual  expense,  anxiety,  and  opportunity  for  controversy. 
There  is,  however,  a  possibility  of  injustice,  since  it  is  not  always 
practicable  to  ascertain  at  so  early  a  period  in  the  life  of  the  dis- 
trict, particularly  in  view  of  possible  seepage  dei)rcciation,  how  the 
final  apportionment  in  justice  should  be  made.  It  is  probable  that 
the  decree  in  confirmation  of  assessment  and  apportionment  shoidd 
be  made  expressly  susceptible  of  being  reopened  h\  the  court  after 
a  set  period  of  years  upon  showing  of  manifest  injustice,  whereupon 
a  supplemental  and  possibly  final  readjustment  of  the  assessment 
might  be  made  in  order  to  accord  with  experience.  If  so  amended 
it  is  believed  that  the  Idaho  assessment  law  would  be  the  best  yet 
devised.     This  law  is  not  objectionable  in  its  method  of  apportion- 


60  HA:NrDBOOK  of  irrigatiojst  district  laws. 

ment  of  assessment  upon  the  score  of  any  release  of  lands  or  partial 
release  of  the  debt. 

Nevada  followed  Idaho  in  the  matter  of  assessment  in  the  1917 
amendatorj'  act. 

What  lands  assessahle. — The  fundamental  power  to  levy  assess- 
ments, whether  assessment  be  under  the  ad  valorem,  the  flat  rate  per 
acre,  or  the  benefit  basis,  rests  upon  the  benefit  derived  from  the 
lands  to  be  taxed.  (Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Bradley,  164  U.  S.,  112; 
Knowles  v.  New  Sweden  Irr.  Dist.,  101  Pac,  81;  16  Idaho,  217.) 
But  it  does  not  follow  by  any  means  that  this  benefit  rests  solely 
upon  the  irrigation  of  the  land.  The  enhancement  of  the  market 
value  of  city  and  town  property,  which  admittedly  never  will  be 
irrigated,  justifies  taxation,  and  that,  too,  ad  valorem,  for  irrigation 
district  purposes.  Lands  which  can  be  used  without  irrigation,  but 
which  will  be  improved  thereby,  have  been  held  assessable  in  several 
cases.  (See  In  re  Madera  Irr.  Dist.,  28  Pac,  272;  92  Calif.,  296; 
Tyson  i;.  Washington  Co.,  110  N.  W.,  634;  78  Nebr.,  211;  Fallbrook 
Irr.  Dist.  v.  Bradley,  supra.) 

Public  lands  of  the  United  States  both  entered  and  unentered  are 
assessable  in  the  manner  and  to  the  extent  prescribed  by  the  Smith 
Act.  Avhich  is  discussed  aliove  (p.  24). 

The  assessment  of  railroad  lands  has  also  been  upheld.  (See  Short 
Line  v.  Pioneer  Irr.  Dist.,  102  Pac,  904;  16  Idaho,  578.) 

As^e!<sment  of  /State  lands. — The  nearest  approach  to  uniformity 
in  the  matter  of  provision  for  the  inclusion  and  assessment  by  a 
district  of  State  lands  lying  within  its  boundaries  is  to  be  found  in 
the  utter  failure,  of  many  of  the  States  to  legislate  on  the  subject. 
AVherever  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  cover  this  field,  each  State 
seems  to  have  dealt  with  the  matter  from  a  dilferent  angle.  The 
State  legislatures  should  provide  as  adequate  cooperation  with  dis- 
ti'icts  as  regards  State  lands  as  Congress  has  provided  as  regards 
the  Federal  public  domain.     (See  supra,  p.  24.) 

Perhaps  the  most  unusual  provision  is  that  of  South  Dakota,  which 
specifies  that  common  school  and  endowment  lands  of  the  State 
within  an  irrigation  district  shall  be  sold  within  five  years  from  the 
date  water  is  availal)le  for  irrigation,  and  after  the  sale  these  lands 
may  be  brought  into  the  district  in  the  same  manner  as  other  lands 
may  be  included. 

Same — Leasehold  interests.^— It  is  quite  commonly  provided  that 
leasehold  interests  in  State  lands  within  a  project  shall  be  subject  to 
assessment  and  taxation  as  other  real  property  in  the  district.  The 
holders  of  the  leasehold  intierest  are  required  to  pay  the  assessments, 
and  in  return  are  given  a  voice  in  the  atfairs  of  the  district. 

Same — Peiynient  of  assessments  by  the  State. — The  payment  of 
district  taxes  by  the  State  is  an  unusual  feature,  but  express  provision 
for  this  has  been  made  bv  two  States. 

Colorado  in  1909  (M. 'A.  S.,  1912,  sees.  4019-4023)  made  agricul- 
tural college  and  school  lands  of  the  State  subject  to  inclusion  within 
a  district  upon  petition  of  the  State  board  by  land  commissioners. 
Such  land  would  then  become  liable  to  assessment  for  district  pur- 
i:)oses,  the  same  to  be  paid  by  warrant  issued  by  the  State  treasurer. 
The  amounts  so  paid  were  to  be  charged  to  the  respective  tracts  of 
land  involved  and  repaid  to  the  State  by  the  purchasers  when  the 
lands  were  sold. 


ASS1':SSMEXT    AND   LEVY.  61 

This  law  ;q)peai's,  however,  to  have  been  modified  bv  the  act  of 
June  2,  1911  (M.  A.  S.,  1912,  sees.  5846,  5847),  which/ without  ex- 
l^ressly  repeal ino-  the  former  act.  pi'ovides  in  somewhat  moi-e  jieneral 
terms  that  the  board  of  land  commissioners  may  contract  for  water 
rights  for  State  land  with  irrigation  districts  or  private  parties,  or 
may  petition  for  inclusion  of  such  hind  within  iri'igation  districts. 
But  "in  no  case  shall  any  interest  or  title  of  the  State  be  made  liable 
or  subjected  to  any  chiini  for  any  water  tax,  water  assessment,  or 
water  charge  by  reason  of  the  inckision  of  any  such  State  lands  in 
i\ny  irrigation  district."  Provision  is  also  made  in  the  latter  law 
that  "all  assessments  or  other  payments  for  the  cost  of  so  irrigating 
any  State  lands  shall  be  i)aid  by  the  lessees  or  purchasers  thereof." 

Xevada  also  appears  to  ha\e  superseded  a  former  law  permitting 
State  lands  to  be  sold  for  irrigation  disti'ict  taxes  by  one  which  pro- 
hibits the  assessment  of  State  hunls  for  district  pui-poses.  Under 
the  present  method  State  officials  ascertain  the  amount  of  benefit 
which  will  accrue  to  State  lands  l)y  reason  of  any  irrigation  district 
project.  Conti'act  may  then  be  made  Avith  the  district  whereby  the 
State  })ays  the  value  of  such  benefits  in  cash,  such  payments  to  be 
charged  to  the  land  and  later  repaid  to  the  State  by  the  purchasers 
of  the  respective  tracts.     (See  infra,  p.  130.) 

Same — Payment  of  assessments  hy  furchaser  or  lessee. — A  more 
conservative  doctrine  is  to  permit  the  State  lands  to  be  assessed  as 
other  lands  in  the  district  for  district  purposes,  all  such  assess- 
ments to  be  paid  by  the  purchaser  or  lessee  of  the  tract  assessed  wdien 
contract  for  sale  shall  be  made.  This  is  the  Oregon  method,  as 
well  as  that  of  California,  the  latter  State  having  what  is  perhaps 
the  most  satisfactory  provisions  on  the  subject.  In  a  special  act 
(L..  1917,  p.  936)  State  lands  within  irrigation  districts  are  made 
"subject  to  all  the  provisions  of  the  law  relating  to  the  organization, 
government,  and  regulation  of  irrigation  districts  to  the  same  ex- 
tent and  in  the  same  manner  "  as  private  lands,  with  the  proviso 
that  the  State  will  not  be  responsible  for  the  payment  of  any  charges 
or  assessments.  Xo  State  lands  in  California  may  be  sold  for  assess- 
ments levied  while  they  were  unentered,  but  such  assessment  remains 
a  lien  upon  the  land  and  nnist  be  paid  before  patent  will  be  issued 
therefor  by  the  State. 

When  validity  of  (tssef<sment  of  lands  way  he  raided. — In  a  recent 
case  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  writ  of  error 
had  been  sued  out  from  a  decree  granted  by  an  Idaho  district  court, 
affirmed  upon  aj^peal  by  the  State  supreme  court,  in  confirmation 
of  a  contract  pending  with  the  United  States  under  the  reclamation 
act.  The  ground  for  the  writ  was  that  lands  of  the  plaintiffs  in 
error,  cross-complainants  in  the  State  court,  would  be  assessed  to 
meet  the  contract  debt  without  benefit,  since  they  were  possessed  of 
a  sufficient  water  right. 

The  Federal  Supreme  (3ourt,  however,  held  that  the  issues  stated 
in  the  cross  complaint  wei'e  prematurely  raised,  for  by  the  confirma- 
tion of  the  contract  the  plaintiffs  in  error  would  not  be  deprived  of 
their  property  without  due  process  of  law-.  The  court  found  that 
such  issues  could  be  timely  raised  only  upon  the  subsequent  assess- 
ment proceedings,  saying: 

This  for  the  reason  thut  the  State  statute  provides  that  any  assessments  upon 
sucli  lands  to  carry  into  effect  the  purposes  of  tlie  contract  must  subsecpiently 


62  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

be  made  by  the  board  of  directors  of  tlie  inigation  district  on  tlie  basis  of  bene- 
fits conferred,  at  a  meeting  of  the  board,  to  be  held  at  a  time  and  place  of  which 
the  owners  of  the  lands  to  l)e  charged  must  be  notified  by  postal  card  and  by 
newspaper  publication.  (Idaho  Rev.  Codes,  vol.  1,  title  13,  ch.  4,  art.  2400.) 
At  such  meeting  the  landowner  may  ob.ject  to  any  proposed  assessment  on  his 
land,  and  if  the  objection  is  overruled  by  the  board,  and  he  does  not  consent  to 
the  assessment  as  finally  determined,  such  objection  shall,  without  further  pro- 
ceeding, be  regarded  as  appealed  to  the  district  court,  and  shall  there  again  be 
heard  in  proceedings  to  confirm  the  assessment.  It  is  explicitly  provided  that 
upon  such  hearing  the  court  shall  disregard  every  error,  irregularity,  or  omis- 
sion which  does  not  affect  the  substantial  rights  of  any  party  and  shall  correct 
any  error  which  may  be  found  in  sucli  assessment,  or  any  injustice  wliicli  may 
result  from  it.  (Petrie  v.  Nampa  and  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.,  decided  Dec.  0,  1918, 
248  U.  S.,  154.) 

Discretion  of  the  hoard  in.  asse-ssinr/. — The  officers  charged  with 
the  duty  of  making  the  assessments  have  broad  powers  of  discretion. 
In  case  the}^  follow  the  principles  of  assessment  laid  down  for  their 
guidance  by  the  statute.  "  no  claim  being  made  of  any  fraud,  the  de- 
termination of  the  board  must  be  accepted  as  conclusive."  (Colburn 
V.  Wilson  et  al.,  Directors  of  Emmett  Irr.  Dist.,  132  Pac.  579,582; 
24  Ida..  102.) 

Courts  will  seldom  review  assessments  made  by  boards  authorized 
to  assess  for  public  corporations.  The  California  Supreme  Court 
has  laid  the  rule  doAvn  as  follows : 

The  board  of  directors  must  be  allowed  to  exercise  a  discretion  in  determining 
Low  great  an  assessment  will  be  "  suflicient  to  raise  "  the  annual  interest ;  and, 
unless  it  can  be  seen  that  they  have  abused  this  discreticm,  courts  ought  not  U> 
interfere  with  their  action.  If,  however,  the  disparity  between  the  amoimt  of 
the  assessment  and  the  amount  of  the  annual  interest  is  so  great  as  to  make  it 
appear  that  their  action  was  improper,  and  not  in  the  exercise  of  any  discretion, 
80  that  the  assessment  is  excessive,  courts  are  atitliorizetl  to  prevent  its  en- 
forcement. Although  the  levying  of  an  assessment  is  an  act  of  a  legislative 
character,  yet  the  board  of  directors  is  not  clothed  with  the  supremacy  of  the 
legislature  in  this  respect,  but  is  in  the  exercise  of  a  delegated  power,  and  sub- 
ject to  control  by  the  judiciary  if  it  steps  beyond  the  limits  of  the  power  con- 
ferred upon  it.     (Hughson  v.  Crane,  47  Pac,  120,  123;  115  Calif.,  404.) 

MoMdarnvs  for  faiJure  to  assess.— X  writ  of  mandamus  will  issue 
to  compel  the  district  board  or  the  count}'  board,  as  the  case  may 
be,  to  make  the  assessment  necessary  for  revenue  to  pay  the  debts 
of  the  district.  (Board  of  Supervisors  of  Riverside  Co..  California, 
r.  Thompson.  122  Fed.  (C.  C.  A.)  860;  Henrylyn  Irr.  Dist.  v. 
Thomas,  173  Pac.  (Colo.,  1918),  541;  Nevada  National  Bank  of  San 
Francisco  v.  Board  of  Supervisors  of  Kern  Co.,  91  Pac,  122 ;  5  Calif. 
App.,  638;  State  ex  rel  Witherop  v.  Brown,  53  Pac,  548;  19  Wash., 
3.S3.) 

The  Colorado  Supreme  Court  has  lield  that  where  an  irrigation 
district  is  in  default  in  payment  upon  w^arrants  the  warrant  holder 
can  not  sue  to  recover  a  money  judgment,  the  exclusive  remedy  being 
jiiandamus.  (Eio  Grande  Junction  Ry.  Co.  v.  Orcliard  Mesa  Irr. 
Dist.,  171  Pac.  (1918),  367.)  Mandamus  has  also  been  held  by  the 
same  court  to  be  the  exclusive  remedy  in  case  of  default  upon  bonds. 
(Henrylyn  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Thomas,  173  Pac.  (1918),  541.) 

Defective  assessment.— T\\e  courts  are  strongly  inclined  to  support 
assessments  made  in  good  faith  and  to  hold  defects  immaterial.  For 
numerous  defects  susceptible  of  being  waived  the  irrigation  district 
case  of  Corson  v.  Crocker  (161  Pac,  287,  Calif.,  1916)  may  be  con- 
sulted. 


ASSESSMENT   AND  LEVY.  63 

In  another  California  case  it  was  held  that  although  no  curative 
act  can  deprive  a  landowner  of  his  property-  or  of  his  right  to  resist 
a  pretended  sale,  or  take  property  without  due  process  of  law,  yet 
unless  the  landowner  sues  within  the  period  prescribed  for  attacks 
upon  an  assessment  he  is  precluded  from  resisting  the  enforcement 
of  an  assessment  on  the  ground  of  noncompliance  with  any  provisions 
of  law  which  the  legi  laturc  need  not  have  laid  down  in  order  to 
make  the  law  constitutional.  (Imperial  Land  Co.  v.  Imperial  Irr. 
Dist.,  161  Pac,  113:  173  Calif.  (1916).  660.) 

Moreover,  the  principles  of  estoppel  apply  in  the  matter  of  the 

.avoidance  of  an  assessment  or  a  tax  sale.     If  the  landowner  fail 

to  act  with  promptness  in  case  of  defects  and  irregularities,  he  will 

be  deemed  to  have  waived  his  right  to  object.     (Page  v.  Oneida  Irr. 

Dist.,  141  Pac,  238;  26  Idaho  (1014),  lOS.) 

It  is  nevertheless  exceedingly  important  that  public  officials 
charged  with  the  duty  of  assessment,  levj-.  and  foreclosure  take  every 
precaution  to  follow  the  statute  precisely  in  these  functions.  Courts 
do  not  always  agree  as  to  which  of  the  steps  prescribed  by  law  are 
vital  and  jurisdictional.  The  responsibility  upon  the  officers  is  not 
onlj^  to  avoid  fundamental  omissions  which  would  nullify  an  assess- 
ment, but  also  to  avoid  errors  which  invite  litigation.  Then,  too, 
there  is  the  question  of  titles  to  be  considered  in  all  cases  in  which  tax 
foreclosure  follows  default  in  the  payment  of  the  assessment. 

Nature  of  inigation  district  lien. — The  statutes,  in  declaring  that 
the  lands  of  the  district  shall  be  and  remain  liable  to  be  assessed  for 
district  purposes,  and  in  supplementing  such  declaration,  as  a  few  of 
them  do,  with  the  proviso  that  the  bonds  shall  become  a  lien  upon 
all  the  water  rights,  the  irrigation  system,  and  other  property  owned 
or  acquired  by  any  irrigation  district,  and  that  the  creditor  upon 
default  of  the  district  may  take  possession  of  the  district  property 
and  control  the  same  until  such  lien  can  be  enforced  in  a  civil  action 
(see  AVash.  Remington  Statutes,  sec.  6432),  do  not  create  a  lien  upon 
the  property  of  any  landowner. 

Upon  the  contrary  it  is  only  in  connection  with  the  annual  levy 
of  assessment,  and  upon  a  statutory  date  that  the  amount  of  the 
assessment  becomes  a  lien  upon  the  lands  of  individual  owners. 

This  is  clear  from  the  following  cases:  Boskowitz  v.  Thompson, 
Collector  for  Tipton  Irr.  Dist.  (78  Pac.  290;  144  Calif.,  724)  ;  Mer- 
chants' Bank  v.  Escondido  Irr.  Dist.  (77  Pac,  937;  144  Calif.,  329)  ; 
Thomas  v.  Patterson,  Co.  Treasurer  (159  Pac,  34:  61  Colo.  (1916), 
547)  :  Condit  v.  Johnson  (139  N.  W.,  477;  158  Iowa  (1913).  209). 

Relation  of  irAqat'ion  (listHct  liens  to  titles.— Thi^  distinction 
while  obvious  is  often  overlooked.  It  is  important  in  the  ordinary 
cases  of  the  transfer  of  title  as  in  the  Iowa  case  last  above  referred 
to  which  held  in  construing  a  Colorado  statute,  that  the  existence  of 
an  irrigation  district  bond  issue  effects  no  specific  lien  u]ion  the  land 
nor  obligates  a  vendor  to  pay  in  advance  of  assessment  in  order  to 
convey  title  free  of  incumbrance. 

But  the  distinction  is  more  important  in  the  case  of  mortgage  com- 
panies restrained  by  by-laws  or  fiduciaries  restrained  by  statute  from 
loaning  except  where  mortgage  prior  to  all  other  liens  and  incum- 
brances is  secured. 

It  is  sometimes  difficult  for  laymen  to  understand  that  the  altera- 
tion of  security  from  a  private  mortgage  to  a  bond  issue  or  a  contract 


64  HAISTDBOOK   OF   lEEIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

with  an  irrigation  district,  although  the  debt  remain  undiminished, 
will  so  operate  as  to  remove  the  statutory  bar  to  loans. 

The  irrigation  district  bonds,  however,  are  of  the  same  legal  char- 
acter as  school  district  or  county  bonds  and  in  no  sense  constitute 
liens  or  mortgages  on  private  lands.  The  annual  assessments  of 
irrigation  districts,  however,  just  as  similar  assessments  of  other 
public  corporations,  become  liens  annually. 

Sitnation  under  Federal  farm  loan  act. — The  Federal  Farm  Loan 
Board  early  encountered  the  problem  of  loaning  under  the  Federal 
farm  loan  act  (39  Stat.,  360),  which  forbade  approval  of  loans  not 
secured  by  first  mortgage.  The  question  was  acute  in  the  irrigated 
portion  of  the  country  where  mortgage  liens  for  payment  of  water 
charges  or  to  secure  bonded  indebtedness  or  recoupment  of  water 
com]:)anies  affecting  millions  of  acres  made  loaning  impossible  under 
the  Federal  farm  loan  act. 

Reclamation  Service  liens. — A  difficult  phase  of  the  question  re- 
sulted from  the  fact  that  the  Federal  Eeclamation  Service  had  liens 
embodied  in  "water-right  applications"  to  the  United  States  and 
other  liens  inuring  to  the  benefit  of  the  Government  in  each  ''  stock 
subscription  and  contract"  given  by  the  landowners  to  the  water 
users'  associations  cooperating  with  the  United  States.' 

Congressional  committees  considered  as  alternative  plans  the 
amendment  of  the  reclamation  act  so  as  to  waive  the  priority  of  the 
lien  of  the  United  States  for  the  irrigation  costs  and  the  amendment 
of  the  Federal  farm  loan  act  so  as  to  permit  the  acceptance  of  a 
mortgage  subordinate  to  that  of  the  United  States  for  the  irrigation 
costs,  but  were  unwilling  to  adopt  either  alternative. 

Legal  bar  removed  in  case  of  irrigation  district. — The  result  is  that 
irrigation  mortgage  liens,  whether  to  the  United  States  or  to  private 
persons  or  corporations,  remain  a  legal  bar  to  Federal  loans.  But 
where  the  costs  ai'e  secured  by  irrigation  district  bonds  or  contract 
with  the  United  States  and  there  are  no  mortgage  liens  of  record 
therefor  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  is  able  to  approve  loans,  and 
is  doing  so  both  on  Government  reclamation  projects  and  elsewhere, 
provided  always  that  the  security  is  satisfactory  in  view  of  all  the 
circumstances.  Where,  however,  there  is  a  lien  reserved  in  the  patent 
no  relief  is  yet  legalized.  (See  supra,  p.  25.)-  The  debts  of  irriga- 
tion districts,  of  course,  must  be  taken  into  consideration  as  affecting 
the  amount  of  the  loan  which  under  the  law  may  be  approved,  but  the 
legal  bar  does  not  exist  where  the  irrigation  district  method  as  con- 
trasted Avith  the  private  mortgage  method  is  employed. 

The  result  has  been  that  irrigation  districts  have  been  formed 
partly  to  relieve  the  lands  incorporated  therein  from  the  private  liens 
and  at  times  to  discharge  the  liens  in  favor  of  the  United  States  and 
the  water  users'  associations,  and  thus  to  obtain  the  benefit  of  the 
Federal  farm  loan  act.  This  has  been  one  of  the  inducing  but  not  the 
principal  or  moving  causes  of  the  reorganization  of  irrigation  dis- 
tricts of  the  projects  mentioned  on  an  earlier  page. 


^A  discussion  of  this  matter  will  be  found  in  the  statement  of  Will  R.  King  in  certain 
congressional  hearings.  (See  Joint  Hearings  Before  the  Subcommittees  of  the  Committees 
on  Banking  and  Currency  Charged  with  the  Investigation  of  Rural  Credits,  63d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  1914,  pp.  940-947.) 

2  This  lien  is  sought  to  be  removed  by  II.  R.  2702.  introduced  by  Congressman  Raker, 
under  consideration  before  the  Arid  Lands  Committee  at  time  of  going  to  press. 


TOLLS  AND   CHAEGES.  65 

Further  revenue  procedure. — The  statutes  provide  for  a  greater  or 
less  decree  of  identification  of  the  collection  methods  with  the  countv 
reveiiue  procedure,  some  prescribin<>;  equalization  by  the  district  hoard 
and  others  in  the  same  manner  as  ordinary  taxes  are  equalized.  The 
levy  is  made  in  a  majority  of  the  States  by  the  county  officers;  in 
California  and  several  others  by  the  district  officers.  Foreclosure  and 
sale  o^enerally  confoj-m  to  the  ordinary  case  of  lands  delinquent  in  the 
payments  of  county  taxes,  a  different  ])eriod  of  redemption,  however, 
being  prescribed  in  some  States.  These  matters  will  be  found  out- 
lined to  some  extent  under  the  heads  of  the  various  States,  but  by  no 
means  as  a  substitute  for  consultation  of  the  statutes. 

The  hnvs  in  general  provide  for  various  funds  into  which  the 
moneys  obtained  as  a  result  of  the  revenue  proceedings  are  to  be 
covered  for  the  various  district  pur])oses.  Almost  all  States  provide 
separately  for  a  bond  fund  and  a  nuiintenance  or  current  expense 
fund;  others  })i'ovi«le  a  sei)arate  finul  for  moneys  to  be  i)aid  to  the 
United  States  under  contract  therewith. 

The  distinction  between  the  funds  resulting  from  their  diverse  ])ur- 
poses  and  functions  is  important  for  the  district  officers  to  bear  in 
mind. 

The  Colorado  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  of  Eberhart  v.  Canon, 
Country  Treasurer  (157  Pac.  189).  has  held  Avith  reference  to  the 
respective  funds  that  "  each  is  for  a  specific  purpose  and  should  be 
used  for  that  purpose,  and  no  other,  until  the  purposes  for  which  it 
was  raised  have  been  satisfied"  (p.  191). 

Xot  only  so,  but  the  court  hold  that  the  moneys  derived  from  the 
levy  for  one  year  for  maintenance,  operating  and  current  expenses 
could  not  be  used  for  the  payment  of  the  same  class  of  expenses  for 
some  prior  yeai-  until  all  of  those  for  the  year  for  which  it  had  been 
levied  were  })aid.  This  is  for  the  reason  that  if  the  district  becomes 
involved  it  might  well  be  "that  all  the  moneys  levied  and  collected 
would  be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  warrants  of  prior  years  and 
be  totally  insufficient  for  that  purpose,  thereby  leaving  the  district 
without  any  funds  to  meet  the  cui-rent  obligations  or  with  which  to 
in  any  manner  continue  its  existence,  etc."  (Id.,  p.  191).  See  also 
the  case  of  Rio  (rrande  Junction  T\v.  Co.  v.  Orchard  Mesa  Irr.  Dist. 
(171  Pac.  (Colo..  1918),  867). 

Special  /^/«.'fc,s,s//i/';y^,s\— -Some  of  the  laws  provide  that  wheiv  the 
proceeds  of  bond  sales  are  insufficient  for  carrying  out  the  construc- 
tion plans  adopted  by  the  disti'ict.  and  additional  bonds  are  not 
voted,  the  board  shall  by  special  assessments  provide  foi-  the  comj>le- 
tion  of  the  woi-ks.  Tn  some  States  this  is  de])endent  on  a  ])opulai' 
vote:  in  others  it  is  mandatory  upon  the  boa]<l  and  an  election  is 
not  held. 

Special  assessments  when  levied  for  such  purpose  or  any  other 
purpose  authorized  by  law  are  in  general  collectible  in  the  same 
manner  as  other  assessments  made  and  levied  bv  the  districts.  (  Hol- 
land r.  Avondale  Irr.  Dist.,  16f>  Pac.  259;  30  Ida..  479.) 

TOLLS    AND   CHARGES. 

The  second  method  whei'eby  irriaatiou  districts  are  authorized  to 
secure   revenue   is   1)\-    the    ini])osition    of   tolls    and    charges.      This 

i(;0047— 20 n 


66  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

method  is  analogous  to  the  method  whereby  a  city  obtains  its  revenue 
for  water  service,  it  being  discretionary  with  the  corporation  to  stop 
the  service  when  the  consumer  "fails  to  make  current  payment  for 
current  usage. 

Tolls  and  charges  are  by  most  statutes  merely  an  alternative  means 
for  securing  revenue,  and  then  only  for  the  operation  and  mainte- 
nance costs.  In  Texas,  however,  as  will  be  noted  from  a  reference  to 
the  resume  of  the  law  of  that  State  (infra.,  p.  150),  provision  is  made 
that  a  portion  of  operation  costs  must  each  year  be  collected  by  tolls 
and  charges,  the  balance  being  secured  by  assessment  and  levy.  The 
statute  provides  in  some  detail  tlie  time  and  method  of  securing  the 
charges,  and  as  to  the  security  to  be  obtained  in  case  forbearance  is 
exercised  in  the  matter  of  prompt  payment. 

This  method  of  securing  funds  required  for  operation,  mainte- 
nance, and  current  expen^^e  is  very  effective  as  regards  lands  under 
cultivation  and  equally  ineffective  as  regards  lands  not  under  cul- 
tivation. 

Constitutionality  of  the  Irrigation  District  Law. 

The  constitutionality  of  several  portions  of  the  irrigation  district 
laws  has  already  been  treated.  It  remains  to  refer  briefly  to  the 
constitutionality  of  the  general  principles  of  these  laws. 

The  unanimous  opinion  of  courts  of  last  resort  has  been  to  uphold 
the  irrigation  district  acts  of  all  of  the  States  in  all  leading  provi- 
sions and  in  their  general  scope.  There  have  been  occasional  features 
of  several  of  the  irrigation  district  acts  which  have  been  held  not 
to  accord  with  State  constitutions.  An  exara]de  is  found  in  the  orig- 
inal provisions  for  the  electorate  of  Idaho  irrigation  districts  re- 
ferred to  above  (p.  19).  But  as  heretofore  pointed  out  has  not  thus 
far  been  followed  by  any  of  highest  courts  of  other  States. 

As  in  many  other  irrigation  district  matters  the  place  of  pioneer, 
in  the  judicial  construction  of  the  irrigation  district  law,  has  been 
taken  by  the  State  of  California.  Probably  tlie  leading  decisions  up- 
holding the  constitutionality  of  these  acts  are  Modeso  Irr.  Dicst.  v. 
Tregea  (26  Pac,  237;  88  Calif.,  334)  ;  and  in  re  Madera  Irr.  Dist. 
(28Pac.,  272:  92  Calif.,  296). 

The  case  of  Bradley  v.  Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.,  however,  arising  in 
the  same  State,  elicited  a  very  different  opinion  from  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  California,  Mr. 
Justice  Ross  holding  that  the  creation  of  irrigation  districts  could 
not  be  sustained  under  the  power  to  make  assessments  for  local  im- 
provements, and  that  it  was  clear  the  statute  provided  for  the  taking 
of  private  property  without  due  jDrocess  of  law.  The  court  con- 
cluded as  follows: 

Unfortunate  as  it  will  be  if  losses  result  to  investors,  and  desirable  as  it 
undoubtedly  is,  in  this  section  of  the  country,  that  irrigation  facilities  be  im- 
proved and  exten'ded,  it  is  far  more  important  that  the  provisions  of  that  gi'eat 
charter,  which  is  the  sheet  anchor  of  safety,  be  in  all  things  observed  and 
enforced.     (Bradley  v.  Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.,  68  Fed.,  948,  966.) 

This  case,  however,  was  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  and  the  constitutionality  of  the  irrigation  district 
law  of  California  was  fully  upheld.  Among  the  points  favorably 
decided  were  that  irrigation  of  arid  lands  is  a  public  purpose,  and 


CONSTITUTIONALITY  OF   THE   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAW.  67 

the  water  so  employed  is  put  to  a  public  use;  that  the  statutes  pro- 
viding for  irrigation  are  valid  exercises  of  legislative  power;  that 
due  process  of  law  is  provided  and  equal  protection  of  the  law  is 
given  in  the  irrigation  district  proceedings  where  the  revenue  pro- 
visions are  those  customarily  followed  in  the  State  and  the  land- 
owner to  be  charged  has  an  opportunity  to  be  heard ;  and  that  the 
act  makes  proper  piovision  respectively  for  hearing  upon  the  forma- 
tion of  a  district,  upon  the  deternunation  of  the  boundiuies  thereof. 
upon  coiifirmation  of  the  compliance  m  ith  the  act,  and  upon  appor- 
tionment of  the  benefits  to  be  derived  by  the  lands  to  be  taxed.  The 
plan  of  assessment  Avas  also  declared  valid. 

In  tliis  case  the  Supreme  Court  upheld  the  act  in  vieAV  of  both  the 
Federal  and  State  constitutions,  as  regards  the  former  after  an 
original  inquiry,  and  in  the  case  of  the  State  constitution,  being 
boimd  by  the  construction  adopted  by  the  California  Supreme  Court. 

Man}'  features  of  the  irrigation  district  laws  are  found  to  be 
Avithin  the  provisions  of  the  State  constitutions  in  view  of  the  dis- 
tinction to  be  made  between  ordinary  taxation  and  the  making  and 
levying  of  special  assessments  for  local  public  improvement  pur- 
,poses.  Irrigation  district  revenues  are  held  to  be  for  the  latter  func- 
tion of  public  corporations  as  contrasted  with  taxation  for  purely 
governmental  purposes. 

This  distinction  is  familiar  in  the  law  of  public  corporations  and 
luis  been  establislied  for  a  long  period.  It  was  recognized  in  1892 
as  regards  the  irrigation  district  law  in  the  Washington  case  of 
Board  of  Middle  Kittitas  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Peterson  (29  Pac,  995.  99T; 
4  Wash.,  147).  The  leadino-  California  case  upon  this  point  is  San 
Diego  r.  Linda  Vista  Irr.  Dist.  (41  Pac,  291;  108  Calif.,  189).  The 
court  in  this  case  held  as  follows: 

The  district,  when  formed,  is  a  local  organization,  to  secure  a  local  Ijenefir, 
to  be  derived  from  the  irrigation  of  lands  from  the  same  source  of  water 
supply,  and  by  the  same  system  of  works.  It  is,  therefore,  a  charge  upon 
lan'ds  benefited,  or  capnble  of  being  beneflted,  by  a  single  local  work  or  im- 
provement, and  from  which  the  State,  or  the  public  at  large,  derives  no  di- 
rect benefit,  but  only  that  reflex  benefit  which  all  local  improvements  confer. 
In  Taylor  v.  Palmer  (31  Cal.,  241,  255),  the  court  defined  the  tei-m  "assess- 
ment," as  distinguished  from  "taxation,"  thus:  "It  is  not  a  power  to  tax  all 
the  property  within  the  corporation  for  general  purposes,  but  the  power  to 
tax  sjiecific  ]i roper ty  for  a  specific  purpose.  It  is  not  a  power  to  tax  property 
generally,  founded  upon  the  ber.efits  supposed  to  be  derived  from  the  organ- 
ization of  a  governmerit  for  the  protection  of  life,  liberty,  and  property,  but 
a  power  to  tax  specific  property  founded  upon  the  benefits  supposed  to  be  de- 
rived by  the  property  itself  from  the  expenditure  of  the  tax  in  its  innuediale 
vicinity"    (p.  292). 

It  is  only  in  view  of  the  foregoing  distinction  that  irrigation  dis- 
trict statutes  are  held  constitutional  as  not  being  within  the  purview 
of  many  constitutional  provisions,  among  others,  prohibitions  against 
property  qualification  for  the  exercise  of  the  voting  franchise,  resi- 
dence requirements  for  voting,  prohibitions  against  inequality  of 
taxation,  prohibitions  against  municipal  corporations  incurring  liabil- 
ities above  a  certain  percentage  of  the  valuation  of  the  land  therein, 
prohibitions  against  taxation  upon  any  other  theory  than  ad  valorem 
valuation,  and  many  others  that  need  not  be  catalogued. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  recognized  the  local 
improvement  status  of  the  irrigation  district  and  the  special  assess- 
ment character  of  the  revenue  machinerv  in  the  case  of  Fallbrook 


68  HANDBOOK    OF   TRPJGATTOT^   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

Irr.  Dist.  rT  Bradley  (supra,  pp.  IBl,  163.  174.  and  ITG).  Moreover, 
the  eases  of  Lundber^  v.  Green  River  Irr.  Dist.  (119  Pac.  (T^tah). 
1039),  and  McCord  Mercantile  Co.  i\  Mclntyre  (138  Pac.  (Colo. 
1914),  59),  may  also  ])e  consulted  in  this  connection. 

The  constitutionality  of  the  irrigation  district  laws  have,  however, 
been  so  thoroughly  and  so  uniA^ersally  established  that  the  subject  need 
not  be  elaborated.  Among  State  decisions  uj^holding  the  constitution- 
ality of  the  act  the  following  may  be  cited  :  Anderson  r.  Grand  Val- 
ley Irr.  Dist.  (85  Pac,  313;  35  Colo.,  525)  ;  Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr. 
Dist.  V.  Brose  (83  Pac,  499;  11  Ida.,  474)  ;  Know^les  v.  New  Sweden 
Irr.  Dist.  (101  Pac,  81;  16  Ida.,  217)  ;  O'Neill  v.  Yellowstone  Irr. 
Dist.  (121  Pac,  285;  44  Mont.,  492)  ;  Board  of  Directors  of  Alfalfa 
Irr.  Dist.  o\  Collins  (64  N.  W..  1086;  46  Nebr.,  411)  ;  Baltes  v.  Farm- 
ers' In-.  Dist.  (83  N.  W.,  S3;  60  Nebr..  310)  ;  Little  Walla  Walla  Irr. 
Dist.  V.  Preston  (78  Pac,  982;  46  Oreg.,  5)  ;  Hall  r.  Hood  River  Irr. 
Dist.  (110  Pac,  405;  57  Oreg.,  79);  Lundberg  r.  Green  River  Irr. 
Dist.  (119  Pac.  (Utah),  1039)  ;  Board  of  Directors  Middle  Kittitas 
Irr.  Dist.  v.  Peterson  (29  Pac,  995;  4  Wash.,  147);  Kinkade  v. 
Witherop  (69  Pac,  399;  29  Wash.,  10). 

Among  more  recent  California  cases  are  In  re  bonds  of  South  San 
Joaquin  Irr.  Dist.  (119  Pac,  198)  ;  Bliss  v.  Hamilton  (152  Pac, 
303).  The  California  provision  for  the  recall  of  irrigation  district 
officers  is  held  valid  in  Wigley  v.  South  San  Joaquin  Irr.  Dist.  (159 
Pac,  985). 

Irrigation  Districts  in  Operation. 

The  tinancial  and  judicial  engineering  and  construction  methods 
provided  by  law  as  above  outlined  are  obviously  merely  interrelated 
means  to  an  end.  The  ultimate  and,  as  human  atfairs  go,  permanent 
goal  is  a  soundly  financed,  legally  constituted  and  properly  built  irri- 
gation system  operating  as  a  district.  Some  of  the  functions  of  or- 
ganized districts  already  have  been  outlined.  (See  powers  of  the 
district  boai-d,  supra.  ]).  20;  drainage.  sui)ra,  ]).  26;  relations  with  the 
Federal  (lovei-nment.  supra.  ]).  21;  revenue,  supra,  p.  52.) 

Water  right.-— -It  is  not  appropriate  in  the  present  work  to  under- 
take a  discussion  of  the  methods  to  be  folloAved  by  irrigation  districts 
in  the  fundamental  matter  of  the  securing  of  a  water  supply,  since 
this  is  accomplished  solely  through  such  laws  of  each  State  as  gov- 
ern the  appropriation  of  Avater.  the  perfection  of  usufructory  rights 
therein  and  the  adjudication  thereof  as  between  rival  appropriators. 
These  pi'ovisions  are  of  general  application  to  water  claimants  how- 
ever organized  and  therefore  belong  to  general  ii'rigation  laAv. 
Nebraska  districts  are  expressly  authorized  to  secure  a  water  supply 
from  ueiiihboring  States  (infra,  ]).  125). 

Vested  rights. — As  expressly  prohibitive  of  any  possible  interpre- 
tation that  these  public  corporations  are  granted  special  privileges 
in  water,  many  of  the  statutes,  particularly  the  earlier  enactments, 
make  provision  that  neither  navigation  nor  vested  interests  in  min- 
ing water  rights  or  other  mining  property  shall  ever  be  impaired, 
except  that  rights  of  way  may  be  acquired  over  mining  ])roperty. 
It  is  also  specified  that  the  irrigation  act  shall  not  be  interpreted  to 
authorize  the  diversion  of  water,  from  natural  or  artificial  courses^ 
to  the  deti-iment  of  wny  irrigation  or  other  interests. 


IRRIGATION   DISTRICTS   IN    OPERATION.  69 

Jh.stricta  can  nol  (idjuillcatc  walcr  r'aiktu. — Not  only  tloes  tlu^  juris- 
diction of  an  irrigation  district  fall  short  of  any  power  to  invade 
the  property  of  persons  having  rights  in  land  outside  of  the  con- 
fines of  the  corporation,  but  prior  rights  of  owners  within  the  dis- 
trict are  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  district  as  an  arbiter. 

In  the  Oregon  case  of  Little  Walla  Walla  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Preston 
(78  Pac,  982;  46  Ore.,  5),  the  board  had  assumed  jurisdiction  to 
decide  upon  the  priorities  of  owners  having  earlier  rights  to  the  use 
of  water  owning  lands  within  the  confines  of  the  district.  The  court 
held  that  the  irrigation  district  law  does  not  vest  the  board  "  with 
supervision  or  control  over  the  rights  of  individuals." 

Questions  as  to  the  use  of  waste  water,  the  relations  between  "  old "' 
or  prior  w^ater  rights  and  "  new  "  rights  acquired  through  the  cor- 
poration, and  the  duration  of  water  rental  rights  are  all  decided  as 
regards  irrigation  districts  in  the  same  manner  as  for  water  com- 
panies. (See  Gerber  v.  Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.,  100  Pac,  80; 
16  Ida.,  1.) 

Nonjudicial  classification  of  Hghts. — It  does  not,  however,  follow 
that  irrigation  districts  may  not  comprise  lands  to  which  are  ap- 
purtenant water  rights  acquired  prior  to  the  formation  of  the  dis- 
trict where  such  rights  are  for  a  part  only  of  the  irrigation  season 
or,  in  case  the  statute  is  sufficiently  broad,  where  such  lands  are  ben- 
efited in  some  other  resj^ect  as  a  result  of  the  district  system.  In  such 
case  the  district  may  divide  the  water  rights  into  classes  for  admin- 
istrative purposes.  Such  classification  is  not,  however,  an  adjudi- 
cation, "  and  in  no  way  prohibits  or  limits  anj^  user  of  water  in 
having  the  question  of  priority  between  users  settled  and  adjudi- 
cated in  the  projDer  courts  of  the  State."  (Brose  v,  Nampa  and 
Meridian  Irr.  Dist.,  118  Pac,  505;  20  Ida.,  281.) 

The  court  concludes  that  the  provision  for  classification  is  highly 
beneficial  and  "  may  be  accepted  by  the  consumers,  and  thereby  much 
litigation  and  expense  may  be  saved  to  the  consumers."     (Id.,  505.) 

Distrihution  of  ivater. — It  may  be  said  that  the  general  law  as  to 
water  distribution  is  applicable  in  the  main  as  regards  individual 
water  users  under  an  irrigation  district. 

For  example,  the  duty  to  deliver  water,  the  use  of  which  has  be- 
come a  vested  right  of  any  landowner,  irrespective  of  the  difficulty 
or  cost  of  carriage,  devolves  upon  an  irrigation  district  precisely  as 
upon  a  water  company  under  like  circumstances.  (Niday  v.  Barker 
et  al.  Directors  of  Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.,  101  Pac.  254;  16 
Ida.,  703.) 

In  its  principal  administrative  duty  of  the  delivery  of  Avater  to 
the  landowners  the  district  is  a  self-governing  community  and  the 
board  has  the  power  to  establish  and  is  enjoined  to  promulgate  rules 
and  regulations.  With  the  performance  of  this  function  the  courts 
are  loath  to  interfere. 

The  board,  however,  must  adhere  to  the  principles  of  law  and  act 
impartially.  There  must  be  no  discrimination  between  dift'erent 
portions  of  the  district  lands  and  the  district  must  not  assume  juris- 
diction for  the  distribution  of  water  to  one  section  while  neglecting 
other  lateral  systems  and  district  lands. 

In  the  case  of  Harris  v.  Tarbet  et  al,  trustees  of  Logan  Irr.  Dist. 
(57  Pac,  33;  19  Utah,  328),  the  board  was  remiss  in  this  matter,  as 
all  lands  of  the  district  were  being  equally  assessed ;  and  all  were 


70  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

eqiiall}'  entitled  to  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  district  organi- 
zation.   The  court  held : 

As  such  refusal  and  neglect  affect  the  rights  of  the  appellant  and  others 
who  own  land  in  such  district,  and  who  have  home  their  portion  of  the  bur- 
den to  maintain  the  corporation,  as  shown  by  the  testimony,  the  trtistees  ought 
to  be  compelled  by  mandamus  to  perform  their  duty  under  the  law.  We  are 
of  the  opinion  that,  under  the  proof  in  this  case,  the  court  erred  in  denying 
the  writ.     (Id.,  p.  34.) 

CalifoT7iia  rule  in  distnhidion. — The  leadership  of  California  in 
irrigation  district  matters  halts  very  notably  when  the  distribution 
of  water  among  the  district-law  landoAvners  comes  into  question. 
The  law  in  that  State  is  that  all  waters  shall  be  distributed  for  irri- 
gation purposes  by  ratable  apportionment  to  each  landowner  upon 
the  basis  of  the  ratio  which  the  last  assesment  of  each  for  district 
purposes  bears  to  the  whole  sum  assessed  upon  the  district,  with  a 
proviso  that  any  landowner  may  assign  for  any  year  the  right  to 
the  Avhole  or  any  portion  of  the  waters  so  apportioned  to  him. 

This  rule  may  have  originated  in  early  doubts  as  to  the  consti- 
tutionality of  any  other  rule,  but  it  requires  what  is  now  a  generally 
discredited  criterion  for  water  delivery. 

"  Bcnr-ftc/al-use^''  nde  yveferahle. — Many  of  the  States  at  first  fol- 
lowed California  in  this  respect,  but  most  of  them  have  turned  to 
the  more  e(}uitable  and  economically  sound  i:)rinci])le  of  distril)ution 
in  accordance  with  the  beneficial  use  of  the  water  ui)on  the  respec- 
tive tracts  irrigated.  In  Utah  the  State  officials  allot  the  water.  In 
Texas  it  is  required  that  as  a  prerequisite  to  his  right  to  demand 
service  each  landowner  make  an  annual  statement  to  the  district 
board,  setting  forth  the  areas  he  will  farm  that  year  in  each  of  the 
various  crops  to  be  raised.  This  is  an  aid  to  distribution  in  accord 
with  beneficial  use.  For  tlie  beneficial -use  rule,  as  applicable  to  an 
irrigation  district,  see  Niday  ?'.  Barker  et  al..  Directors  (101  Pac, 
254,  2.5t):  16  Ida.,  70H). 

It  is  required  of  the  board  to  promote  efficiency  and  prevent  waste. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  canal  company  to  turn  the  water  out  either  from  the 
main  canal  or  lateral  at  the  most' convenient  point  to  the  consumer  (sec.  32SS, 
Rev.  Codes),  and  this  .should  be  at  such  place  as  to  cause  the  least  waste  by 
seepage  or  evaporation.     (Id.,  p.  255.) 

Rotation  in  service. — On  the  other  hand  the  statutes  frequently, 
particularly  where  the  earlier  law  has  not  been  fundamentally  modi- 
fied, require  the  apportionment  of  the  water,  whenever  the  supply 
shall  be  insufficient  to  meet  the  continual  wants  of  the  owners  of 
water  rights,  upon  certain  or  alternate  days  on  a  rotation  system. 

Sucli  a  degree  of  rotation  of  service  was  sufficiently  progressive 
during  the  original  enactment  of  irrigation  district  laws  when  land- 
owners were  deemed  to  need  a  continuous  flow.  The  present  senti- 
ment in  irrigated  localities  and  the  trend  of  judicial  oj^inion  is  be- 
coming constantly  more  favorable  to  a  system  of  rotation  between 
users  under  ordinary  circumstances,  and  unless  individual  holdings 
are  still  so  large  that  rotation  between  various  parts  of  the  same 
ranch  provides  due  economy.  This  practice,  involving  the  use  of 
larger  lieads  for  shorter  intervals  under  normal  circumstances,  tends 
toward  economy  in  the  use  of  water  and  in  the  time  of  the  irrigator, 
and  tends  toward  lessening  the  seepage  and  alkali  difficulties.  Hence 
a  by-law  requiring  rotation  would,  we  believe,  be  held  valid  by  the 


IRRIGATION  DISTRICTS   IN   OPERATION.  71 

courts,  at  least  in  the  absence  of  contracts  whereby  a  coiitiiuious  floAv 
mitiht  become  a  vested  right. 

Denial  of  sei^nce  fo7-  nonpayment. — The  right  of  the  directors  to 
deny  water  service  in  case  of  faihire  to  pay  the  district  assessments 
has  not  been  thoroughly  woi-ked  out  in  the  statutes  or  decisions  of 
courts.  Nebraska  has  a  clause  permitting  the  adoption  of  a  by-law 
for  the  denial  of  service  in  case  of  delinquency  exceeding  a  two-year 
period.  (Infra,  }).  1-21.)  Distris'ts  which  cooperate  with  the  United 
vStates  under  contract  are  authoi-ized  by  the  respective  statutes  to 
contract  for  operation  in  such  fashion  as  to  comply  with  the  Federal 
laws  and  the  rules  and  regulations  established  thereunder,  and  the 
Federal  laws  require  the  denial  of  water  service  after  a  delin((uency 
in  construction  or  operation  and  maintenance  payments  exceeding 
one  year.  (Reclamation  extension  act  of  Aug.  13,  1914,  sec.  6,  38 
Stat..  687.)  Where  the  method  of  securing  revenue  for  operation 
and  maintenance  is  by  tolls  and  charges,  the  denial  of  water  service 
for  failure  to  pay  woidd  extend  to  the  operation  and  maintenance 
charges. 

Dhtnct  responsibility — Theory. — In  Idaho,  at  least,  the  general 
operations  of  an  irrigation  district  are  proprietary  rather  than  gov- 
ernmental. A  district,  therefore,  upon  acquiring  the  system  of  an 
antecedent  private  corporation  obtains  no  greater  or  governmental 
powers  therein  to  the  curtailment  of  the  powers  of  a  city  through 
which  the  district  waterways  are  built.    The  supreme  court  has  held : 

An  irri.iratiou  district  is  a  public  (lunsi  corporation,  organized,  however,  to 
conduct  a  business  for  the  private  bonetit  of  the  owners  of  land  within  its 
limits.  They  are  the  members  of  the  corporation,  control  its  affairs,  and  they 
alone  are  benefited  by  its  operations.  It  is,  in  the  administration  of  its  busi- 
ness, tlie  owner  of  its  system  in  a  proprietary  rather  than  in  a  public  capacity, 
and  nnist  assume  and  bear  the  burdens  of  i)roprietarv  ownership.  (Nampa  v. 
Ts^ampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.,  115  Pac,  979,  982;  19  Ida.,  779.) 

Liability  for  official  negligence. — Accordingly  there  is  a  distinction 
between  public  corporations  of  a  governmental  character  and  irriga- 
tion districts  in  the  liability  resulting  from  the  negligence  of  their 
officers.  In  the  Federal  case  of  Noon  v.  Gen.  Irr.  Dist.  (205  Fed. 
(1913).  402),  the  court  having  in  mind  the  Idaho  view,  it  was  held 
that  the  district  was  liable : 

It  is  of  no  avail  to  say  that  a  legal  responsibility  might  rest  upon  such  negli- 
gent officers  or  agents  individually.  It  is  noti  to  be  presumed  that  the  particular 
individual  chargeable  witli  the  negligence  in  any  given  case  woiild  possess  such 
financial  responsibility  as  to  make  that  remedy  of  any  practical  value.  As  well 
might  we  relegate  the  injured  railway  passenger  to  an  action  against  the  neg- 
ligent engine  driver  instead  of  liolding  the  corporation  responsible.  I  can  see 
BO  reason  why,  in  a  case  of  this  cliaracter,  or  in  the  supposed  case  where  a 
farmer's  crop  is  flooded  and  destroyed  by  the  negligent  breaking  of  one  of  the 
defendant's  ditches,  the  industry  instead  of  the  individual  or  society  at  large 
should  nob  bear  the  loss.     (Id.,  405.) 

In  the  Dakotas,  by  statute  the  district  is  liable  for  failure  to  deliver 
water  in  case  damage  ensues,  provided  the  landowner  takes  the  steps 
prescribed  by  law.     (See  infra,  p.  137.) 

Official  liability. — The  district  officers  in  common  aa  ith  officers  of 
other  public,  quasi  public  corporations,  and  private  corporations  en- 
gaged in  public  service  may  be  mandamused  to  deliver  water  and  to 
perform  their  necessary  functions.     (See  Harris  v.  Tarbet,  57  Pac, 


72  HAiSTDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

33;  19  Utah,  328.  Niday  v.  Barker  et  al,  director,  101  Pac,  254;  1C> 
Ida.,  T03.) 

Several  of  the  States  have  also  recently  made  provision  for  the 
recall  of  district  officers  before  their  tenure  of  office  expires.  Refer- 
ence to  the  Califoi'nia  provision  will  be  found  below.     (Infra,  p.  •)2.) 

Several  of  the  States  have  statutory  provision  in  general  for  the 
punishment  of  district  officers  who  are  guilty  of  breach  of  trust.  They 
are  also  liable  upon  their  bonds. 

7'he  jjrlvilege  of  transfer. — The  transfer  of  water  from  one  owner 
to  another  is  a  privilege  of  doubtful  expediency.  In  California  it 
partially,  at  least,  results  from  the  method  of  apportionment  of  water 
by  the  board  upon  the  basis  of  the  assessment  paid  as  contrasted  with 
the  beneficial  use  rule.  The  supreme  court  of  that  State  has  held 
that  the  right  exists  onlv  for  transfers  to  lands  within  the  district. 
(Jenison  /'.  Redfield,  87  Pac,  62 :  149  Calif..  500.)  Some  of  the  stat- 
utes provide  that  the  privilege  of  assigning  a  water  right  is  limited  to 
those  who  have  paid  their  assessment  in  full.  The  privilege  is  gener- 
ally limited  to  the  current  year  only. 

In  Utah,  landowners  may  assign  water  privilege  from  one  land- 
owner Avithin  the  district  to  another  fcr  one  year  only,  provided  both 
have  paid  their  assessments,  and  the  board  is  authorized  to  lease  water 
to  occupants  of  extraneous  State  and  Federal  land  upcm  the  same 
terms  as  though  they  were  within  the  district,  but  water  may  be  leased 
to  other  ])ersons  outside  the  district  at  one  and  one-half  times  the  rate 
paid  by  owners  within  the  district.     (Infra.  ]).  152.) 

Another  State  provides  that  owners  w^ithin  or  without  the  district 
may  arrange  for  an  exchange  of  water  retaining  the  privilege  of  re- 
suming the  former  status,  the  arrangement  being  by  contract  with  the 
district.     (See  Montana  jjrovision,  infra,  p.  118.) 

The  tendency  of  the  assignability  of  the  water  is  to  lessen  one  of 
the  advantages  of  irrigation  district  organization,  namely,  the  early 
placing  of  the  land  under  cultivation  on  account  of  assessment  for 
construction  and  operation.  If  a  landowner  may  derive  a  profit 
from  renting  from  year  to  year  the  Avater  which  is  assigned  to  him  to 
others,  he  can  afford  to  defer  development  and  possibly  may  speculate 
in  the  water  right.  It  is  preferable  to  have  powers  of  this  kind  vested 
in  the  board  and  to  have  the  revenue  inure  to  the  district  as  a  whole 
thus  making  the  landowner  realize  that  it  is  to  his  interest  to  make 
beneficial  use  of  the  right  to  the  water  thereby  placing  the  district  on 
a  firmer  financial  basis. 

Some  of  the  States  provide  that  districts  cooperating  with  the 
United  States  pursuant  to  contract  with  tlie  Government  may  lease 
water  to  private  landowners,  entrvmen.  or  municipalities  in  the 
neighborhood.     (See  Colo.,  1,  1917,  pp.  294,;295.) 

Trar)>'ifrr  of  irofer  in  cas^e  of  Rvlrirrujcit'ion. — Reference  has  been 
made  elsewhere  (infra,  p.  80)  to  the  dangers  of  general  provision 
for  the  release  of  district  lands  from  liability  on  account  of  sub- 
irrigation.  AVhere  provision,  however,  is  made  for  the  simultaneous 
binding  of  another  tract  for  the  payments  in  lieu  of  that  released,  the 
arrangement  is  highly  beneficial,  except  where  it  tends  toward  pro- 
crastination in  making  j)rovisi()n  for  drainage.  An  excellent  provi- 
sion on  this  subject  is  contained  in  the  Nebraska  hnv.     (Infra,  p.  121. "> 

Potcer  devetopriient. — The  general  authority  conferred  to  con- 
struct irrigation  works  doubtless  includes  the  construction  of  works 


IRRIGATION   DISTRICTS   IN    OPERATION.  73 

for  the  develupnii'iit  of  power  for  the  reclamation  of  district  lands 
without  express  mention  thereof.  Where,  however,  the  plans  do  not 
or  can  not  include  pumpin<i-  for  district  iiri^ation.  or  where  there  is 
excess  power  or  poAvei'  privilecfe  licvoud  the  need  of  such  ahove- 
^•ravity  units,  the  district  should  be  enipow  ered  to  develop  the  ])ower 
resources  existing  as  possi})le  hy-prcducts  of  its  works,  and  should 
be  authorized  to  dispose  of  the  same  preferably  within  the  district,, 
or  if  they  are  not  susceptil)le  of  economic  use  witliiu  the  district,  for 
use  beyond  its  confines.  Where  the  use  is  for  irrigation,  the  authori- 
zation should  nni  be  limited  in  duration,  otherwise  a  linut  of  lease- 
hold is  liighly  desirable. 

The  California  provision  restricts  the  district  in  its  i)ower  opera- 
tions to  such  etfoi-ts  as  will  not  result  in  increased  ex})enditure  and  to 
the  making  of  a  lease  not  to  exceed  25  years.  The  i)enalties  for 
failui'e  to  pay  on  the  pai'l  of  the  lessee^  are  inequitably  drastic. 
(See  infra.  ]).  Do.) 

The  board  is  empoAvered  in  Idaho  to  construct  and  operate  electric 
power  plants  and  to  sell  surplus  power  for  delivery  at  the  plant  or 
Avithin  the  district,  but  the  contract  can  not  extend  for  more  than 
five  A^ears.  This  restricts  the  use  of  the  power  for  the  most  valual)le 
purpose  of  j)umping  foi-  irrigation,  since  landowners  should  not  be 
called  upon  to  submit  to  a  terminable  privilege.     (Infra,  p.  11-).) 

Provision  in -New  Mexico  is  broader,  permitting  the  construction 
and  control  of  plants  and  the  sale  and  lease  of  electrical  energy  to 
municipalities,  corporations,  oi-  persons.     (See  infra,  p.  131.) 

The  Oregon  law  permits  the  furnishing  of  electric  poAver  for  use 
Avithin  or  without  the  district  boundaries  upon  proper  compensa- 
tion.    (Infi-a,  p.  144.) 

The  Washington  provision  is  more  comprehensive  and  the  gi'eat 
poAvers  conferred  upon  the  district  board  should  probably  be  subject 
to  supervision  by  State  authorities  or  to  ratification  by  the  electorate. 
It  reads  as  follows : 

The  board  oi"  directors  shall  have  the  power  to  sell,  lease,  or  reut  the  use 
of  water  and  poAver,  or  either,  for  delivery  to  occiii)ants  of  public  or  other  lands 
situated  Avithin  or  adjacent  to  the  district,  or  to  municipal  corporations,  or  at 
such  ]U-ices  and  on  such  terms  as  it  deems  best,  provided  no  water  or  power 
shall  be  furnished  for  nse  outside  of  said  district  imtil  all  demands  and  I'e- 
quirements  for  water  and  power  for  use  in  said  district  are  furnished  and 
supplied  by  said  district.     (Rem.  Codes  and  Stats.,  1915,  sec.  6426.) 

Relation's  irith  cities. — As  already  pointed  out,  the  district  in  some 
States  may  include  cities  and  toAvns,  in  others  not  (su))ra.  p.  15). 
Some  of  the  difficulties  involved  Avhen  authority  to  include  them 
is  acted  upon  will  be  found  illustrated  in  the  case  of  City  of  Nampa 
V.  Xampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  We  are  inclined  to  sympathize 
Avith  the  court's  ahcav  : 

The  case  demonstrates  the  ina]iplical)ility  of  the  irriiraliun  district  law  to 
lands  within  cities  and  toAvns.  Rut  it  has  been  held  in  Nampa  ifc  Meridian 
Irr.  Dist.  r.  Brose  (11  Idaho,  474:  SH  I'ac.  499)  that  lots  and  lands  within  a 
city  or  village  may  be  ineluded  in  an  irrijiation  district  if  they  Avill  be  bene- 
fited thereby,  and  where  such  lands  are  included  within  the  district  the  oAvners 
thereof  are  entitled  to  enforce  their  rights  against  the  district  under  the  law 
as  it  stands,  regardless  of  Avhat  that  law  ouuht  to  be.  (115  Pac.  979,  9S.3 ; 
19  Ida.,  779.) 

Most  of  the  district  laws  permit  of  leasing  Avater  to  cities  and 
toAvns  and  entering  into   permanent  contractual  relations   for  the 


74  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

delivery  of  water  to  the  municipalities.  The  city  then  has  the  respon- 
sibility of  retailing  the  water  and  of  collecting  from  landowners,  the 
district  being  left  to  deal  with  larger  landowners,  a  task  for  which 
its  form  of  organization  is  best  fitted.  This  is  much  preferable  in 
point  of  facility  in  operation  as  well  as  in  view  of  considerations 
jjointed  out  on  page  16  above. 

Financial  folicy. — As  regards  the  financial  policy  of  operation  by 
the  district  it  has  been  held  that — 

The  irrigation  act  is  evidently  framed  npon  the  theory  and  with  tlie  intention 
on  the  part  of  tlie  legislatnre  that  the  atfairs  of  the  district  sliall  be  conducted 
upon  a  ready-money  basis  and  not  upon  credit.  (Hughson  v.  Crane,  47  Pac. 
120,  122;  11.5  Calif.,  404.) 

Nevertheless,  the  district  is  a  self-governing  institution  and  the 
courts  seldom  interfere  in  the  exercise  of  the  discretion  of  the  board. 
The  Washington  Supreme  Court  has  held: 

The  board  of  directors  are  clothed  by  the  statute  with  a  wide  discretion  as 
to  the  manner  in  which  they  shall  manage  the  business  of  the  district,  and  the 
courts  are  not  warranted  in  interfering  on  any  mere  question  of  good  business 
policy.  Nothing  short  of  a  gross  abuse  of  their  powers  will  warrant  such  an 
interference.  (Hanson  v.  Kittitas  Rec.  Dist.,  134  Pac,  1083,  1088,  1089;  7-5 
Wash.,  297.) 

New  Mexico  only  has  made  express  provision  for  the  assumption  of 
the  assets  and  liabilities  of  water  users'  association  when  any  project 
cooperating  with  the  United  States  changes  from  a  private  to  a 
public-corporation  basis  by  organizing  a  district.  Provision  is  also 
made  in  the  same  State  for  the  district  to  promote  agricultural 
production  and  marketing  facilities  and  to  appropriate  money  for 
such  purposes. 

Eminent  doiiutin. — The  power  to  condenm  property  is  in  general 
sufficient  and  in  accord  Avith  the  powers  ordinarily  conferred  upon 
quasimunicipal  corporations.  The  Oregon  provision  includes  the 
right  to  condemn  property  already  devoted  to  public  use  whether  for 
irrigation  or  otherwise  which  is  less  necessary  than  the  use  proposed 
by  the  district,  and  the  use  of  water  for  irrigation  by  districts  is 
declared  to  be  a  public  use  more  necessary  than  any  other  public 
or  private  use  to  which  the  water  may  be  appropriated  within  the 
district.     (See  infra,  p.  143.) 

Special  privileges. — The  districts  are  donated  rights  of  way  by 
most  legislatures  over  State  lands,  and  in  some  States  irrigation- 
district  systems  are  exempt  from  taxation.  The  latter  provision 
accords  with  sound  policy  since  the  construction  of  irrigation  systems 
increases  by  many  times  their  value  the  taxable  property  of  the 
community. 

Operation  hi/  the  U'liited  States. — Where  an  irrigation  ])roject  has 
been  built  by  the  Government  pur.suant  to  provisions  of  Federal  and 
vState  law  (supra,  p.  21),  a  district  may  contract  for  o]:)eration  and 
maintenance  of  the  works  to  be  conducted  by  the  United  States,  and 
on  the  large  majority  of  the  projects  constructed  by  the  United 
States  and  organized  as  irrigation  districts  Federal  operation  is  in 
vogue. 

The  Federal  law  provides  for  turning  over  the  operation  and  main- 
tenance of  an  irrigation  system  so  constructed  to  the  water  users 
organized  either  as  an  irrigation  district  or  as  a  water  users'  asso- 
ciation when  request  to  such  end  has  been  made  by  water  users  and 


SUBDISTRICTS   FOR  LOCAL  IMPROVEMENTS.  75 

the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  deems  the  traiisiVr  proper.  (38  Stat., 
687.) 

farcy  Act  projects. — The  I(hih<)  Le<^i.slutui"e  is  the  only  one  that  has 
made  provision  for  district  organization  of  Carey  Act  projects. 
(Infra,  p.  — .) 

Mass  meetings — A  suggestion. — One  general  omission  in  the  dis- 
trict laws  is  that  of  any  provision  requiring  an  annual  meeting  nt 
which  general  i)olicies  can  be  discussed  and  the  public  st^ntinient  of 
the  district  clarihed.  It  is  probable  that  the  results  would  be  bene- 
ficial and  many  districts  are  doubtless  making  it  a  custom.  An 
appropriate  time  for  meeting  ])erhaps  would  be  shortly  l)efore  the 
annual  election.  Nominations  for  officers  which  are  not  adequately 
provided  for  as  a  rule  might  then  aj^propriately  be  made,  and  mat- 
ters to  be  submitted  to  the  electors  could  be  threshed  in  an  open 
forum.  Express  provision  for  special  elections  upon  various  ques- 
tions is  made  by  all  district  laws,  and  these  elections  could  often  be 
held  simultaneously  with  the  general  election  and  after  full  discussion. 
A  provision  in  the  law  fixing  a  convenient  date  annually  would  sup- 
plement and  make  the  custom,  now  in  use  in  some  districts,  only  more 
effective  and  soon  place  same  in  use  in  all  districts. 

Such  a  custom  furthermore  would  assist  in  mutual  understanding, 
promote  judicious  public  sentiment  on  district  affairs,  tend  toward 
wise  selection  of  officers,  keep  the  board  more  adequately  advised  of 
sentiment,  and  relieve  the  local  mind  of  recurring  suspicion  that 
*'  somebody  "  is  diligently  engaged  in  "  sitting  on  the  lid." 

SUBDISTRICTS  TOR  LoCAL  IMPROVEMENTS  WiTHIN  THE  MaIN   DISTRICT. 

Necessity  of  provisions  for  local  improvements. — It  often  becomes 
desirable  after  the  foruiation  of  an  irrigation  district  to  provide 
local  improvements  therein  that  will  be  limited  in  beneficial  effect  to 
a  portion  of  the  lands  embraced  within  the  district,  and  for  which  it 
would  be  unfair  or  impracticable  to  assess  the  district  as  a  whole. 
The  purpose  may  be  local  drainage,  concrete  lining,  improvement  of 
local  structures,  a  pijjing  system,  domestic  Avater.  or  the  like. 

Statutory  provision  necessary. — It  has  been  held  that  works  of 
this  character  nuiy  not  be  undertaken  by  the  irrigation  district, 
which  has  no  power  to  make  a  loc-U  assessment  over  a  limited  area 
within  the  district  for  any  purpose,  without  an  express  provision  of 
law.     (Colburn  v.  WilsonJ  132  Pac,  579,  581 ;  24  Ida.,  102.) 

But  when  the  legislature  has  made  such  express  provision  there  is 
no  doubt  of  its  validity.  In  this  regard  the  rights  of  irrigation  dis- 
tricts  would  be  upheld  under  the  same  principles  adopted  for  dis- 
tricts formed  for  reclamation  by  drainage.  To  quote  from  a  Federal 
court : 

Under  the  autliorities.  :is  T  vi,>\v  llieiii,  it  is  witliiii  the  nuthority  of  the  leiL^is- 
latnre  to  creiite  a  siih<listriet  for  reclamation  of  a  larger  district  theretofore 
created.  The  distinction  between  ordinary  taxes  levied  for  general  govern- 
mental purix)ses  and  asse.ssnients  for  improvements*  has  been  pointed  out  in  a 
number  of  cases.  It  is  for  tlie  legislature  to  decide  the  question  of  the  neces- 
sity for  such  imi)rovements  and  the  area  and  manner  fif  maUini:'  same,  unless 
there  is  such  a  llagrant  abuse  of  the  power,  because  of  arbitrary  and  wholly 
unwarranted  legislative  action,  as  would  authorize  a  court  of  eiiuity  to  inter- 
vene to  protect  a  constitutional  right  of  the  landowner.  (253  Fed.  (li)lS), 
246,  253.) 


76  HANDBOOK   OF   IKRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

As  yet  NeA'adci  and  Washington  only  have  niad^^  provision  for  this- 
important  line  of  nsefulness.  Both  laws  were  enacted  in  1917.  While 
these  two  statutes  have  the  same  general  purpose,  the  means  provided 
are  radically  different. 

The  Nevada  provision. — Nevada  has  provided  (L.  1917,  p.  '263— 
264)  that  when  the  necessity  for  drainage  or  other  local  improve- 
ment arises  within  any  of  the  regularly  established  divisions  of  an 
irrigation  district,  a  petition  to  the  district  board  signed  by  a  ma- 
jority of  tlie  landowners  in  the  division,  repreSv^nting  at  least  one- 
fourth  of  the  acreage  thereof,  describing  the  proposed  improvement 
and  designating  two  local  directors  of  the  division,  serves  to  initiate 
proceedings  looking  toward  the  creation  of  a  local  improvement 
district.  The  board  of  directors  of  the  irrigation  district  appears 
1o  have  no  discretion  in  the  inatter  of  granting  the  petition,  their 
duty  being  merely  to  ascertain  whether  the  law  has  been  complied 
with  by  the  petitioners.  If  so,  the  petition  is  granted  as  a  matter  of 
course.  The  third  member  of  the  local  board  is  the  district  director 
from  the  division  concerned.  The  division  then  has  an  organization 
independent  of  the  district  and  is  a  s(>parate  entity  for  the  purpose 
of  c<mtracting  indebtedness,  constructing  local  drains,  laterals,  and 
other  improvements  the  benefits  of  which  are  confined  to  the  division 
acting  in  all  such  matters  through  the  local  board,  which  exercises, 
for  the  local  organization,  the  same  powers  as  the  district  board 
exercises  foi-  the  main  district. 

The  local  impro^•ement  division,  after  a  two-thirds  vote,  may  issue 
bonds  to  secure  the  funds  necessary  for  its  works,  or  enter  into  con- 
tract witli  the  United  States  for  construction,  and  |)rovide  for  the 
payment  of  operation  and  maintenance  and  incidental  expenses  in 
connection  therewith  as  freely  as  the  disti'ict  itself  might  do,  and 
subject  to  no  control  whatever  from  that  organization. 

.ludicial  confirmation  as  in  the  case  of  a  district  bond  issue  or  con- 
tract is  provided  for  the  division. 

Prior  to  the  election  the  benefits  must  be  apj^ortioned  to  the  lands 
of  the  division  and  the  apportionment  certified  to  the  board  of  di- 
lectors  of  the  district,  which  in  turn  reports  the  same  to  the  county 
officers  in  the  same  numner  that  the  district  apportionment  is  re- 
ported. If  the  issue  of.  bonds  or  contract  with  the  United  States 
shall  fail  to  receive  the  ne(  essary  numbei'  of  votes  at  the  election  the 
local  l)oard  is  dissolved. 

The  Wa-shhigfon  provision. — In  Washington  more  comprehensive 
}3rovision  for  local  improvement  districts  is  made.  (L.  1917,  p.  736- 
740.)  Such  subdistricts  may  embrace  only  the  lands  to.  be  specially 
assessed  for  the  works.  Petition  for  organization,  signed  by  owneis 
of  one-fourth  of  the  acreage  of  such  lands,  is  filed  with  the  district 
board.  After  the  assistance  of  a  competent  engineer  and  advertised 
hearing,  the  board  passes  upon  the  feasibility  of  the  project,  and  has 
discretion  to  accept,  modify  or  reject  the  scheme,  or  to  include  addi- 
tional lands  or  to  exclude  lands. 

The  costs  of  the  impiovement  are  payable  over  a  period  not  ex- 
ceeding five  years  by  Avarrants  issued  by  the  irrigation  district,  but 
the  lands  of  the  local  improvement  district  are  primarily  liable  for 
the  indebtedness  and  they  alone  are  assessed  to  meet  the  payments  on 
the  warrants.  The  warrants  are  a  general  obligation  of  the  entire 
irrigation  district,  however,  and  it  must  make  good  any  default  on 


CHANGE   IX   BOUNDARIES.  77 

the  i)ait  of  the  lociil  district,  the  local  district  hinds  beiiijn;  ()l)liged 
to  recoil})  the  main  district  for  all  such  disbursements. 

^J'hc  iiriojition  district  may  issue  Ijonds  in  tlie  usual  manner  and 
eX('han<i-e  them  for  outstandin<>-  Avarrants  if  desiicd.  the  [nimarv 
liability  of  the  local  district  remainin<i-  unchani^ed.  Provision  for 
judicial  confirmation  is  made. 

Conti'a(  t  may  be  made  bet\V(MMi  the  irrigation  district  an<l  the 
United  States  for  the  construction  of  local  improvements,  for  which 
purpose  local  improvement  districts  may  be  formed. 

Control  of  the  local  enterprise  remains  in  the  hands  of  the  irriga- 
tion district,  all  uiatters  incident  thereto.  includin<r  assessments,  col- 
lection^.  and  disl)ursements  being-  |)er formed  in  the  sauie  manner  as 
in  tlie  case  of  the  district  at  larae. 

A  co/iiparison. — The  ease  with  which  the  Ijoundaries  are  detei- 
mined  and  organization  secured  in  Nevada,  appears  to  be  fully  offset 
by  the  duplication  of  work  incident  to  the  maintenance  of  distinct 
legal  entities  within  the  same  territory. 

^Moreover  the  Xevada  law  is  not  sufficiently  elastic  since  the  need 
for  local  improvements  Avould  seldom  chance  to  coincide  with  the 
lines  of  an  established  division  of  the  ])arent  district.  If  the  area  to 
be  benefited  embraced  only  a  small  portion  of  the  division,  the  disin- 
terested majority  might  be  unwilling  to  obligate  the  di^'ision  for  the 
costs.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  pro])osed  improvement  benefit  lands 
Iving  in  two  or  more  divisions,  the  difficulties  would  clearlv  be  multi- 
plied  and  a  separate  organization  would  be  necessary  in  each  division, 
with  separate  boards,  sejjarate  bond  issues  or  series  of  warrants,  sepa- 
rate assessments  for  benefits,  et  cetera. 

In  contrast  the  Washington  law  provides  that  the  boundaries  of 
local  districts  shall  be  defined  with  reference  only  to  the  plans  for  the 
improvement  and  the  lands  to  be  benefited. 

Still  more  important,  no  separate  entity  is  created,  and  tlie  entire 
matter  in  AVashington  is  under  the  control  of  the  parent  irrigation 
district,  while  the  local  improvement  district  exists  merely  to  definf 
the  lands  that  are  to  derive  practical  benefit  from  the  proposed 
local  works  in  order  that  the  plans  may  be  developed  Avith  special 
reference  to  such  lands  and  that  they  may  bear  the  expense  incurred. 

In  the  latter  State  fui-thermore,  the  main  district,  retaining  control, 
has  adequate  j^ower  to  protect  itself  against  the  assumption  by  a  local 
district  of  an  excessive  debt  which  by  over  obligating  lands  within  the 
local  district  might  lessen  its  credit. 

Certainly  the  Washin<2"ton  method,  whereby  the  district  board 
passes  judgment  upciu  the  ])racticability  of  the  proposed  im])rove- 
ment  and  the  ability  of  the  local  lands  to  pay  the  cost,  and  wherel)y 
the  assets  of  the  entire  district  are  ultimately  responsible  foi-  the  bonds 
Avhich  are  issued  in  its  name,  tends  to  give  the  local  water  users  a  far 
better  market  for  the  bonds  issued  for  local  improvement  purposes. 
This  feature  has  not  yet  been  passed  upon  by  the  courts. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Xevada  law  might  give  better  results  in  cases 
where  the  main  district  is  ultra  conservative  or  its  board  is  unsym- 
pathetic towai-d  some  needed  and  ]iracticable  local  enterprise. 

Change  in  Boundaries. 

In  (/e/icral. — The  boundaries  fixed  at  the  time  of  the  organization  of 
a  district  are  subject  to  change  at  any  time  by  the  directors  or  the 


78  HANDBOOK    OF   IREIGATIOX   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

electors  of  the  district,  as  the  case  may  be,  upon  proper  showing  either 
that  certain  hinds  ought  to  be  annexed  to  tlie  district  or  exchided 
therefrom.  It  is  generally  expressly  declared  that  such  changes  shall 
not  in  any  way  ati'ect  or  impair  the  validity  of  the  organization  of  the 
district  or  any  of  its  rights  and  privileges.  District  obligations^ 
moreover,  continue  unimpaired,  and  all  liens  which  might  at  any  time 
have  attached  for  the  benefit  of  creditors  are  declared  to  remain 
intact. 

It  is  also  almost  always  provided  that  where  snch  district  has  en- 
tered into  contract  Avith  the  United  States,  the  written  assent  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  any  change  in  the  boundaries  must  be 
obtained  and  placed  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  board  before  any  change 
in  boundaries  is  effected. 

Whenever  the  area  of  the  district  is  changed  either  as  the  result  of 
annexation  or  exclusion,  it  is  in  most  States  the  duty  of  the  board  of 
directors  to  redivide  the  district  at  least  30  days  prior  to  the  next  gen- 
eral election  so  as  to  keep  the  various  divisions  as  nearly  equal  in  size 
as  practicable. 

The  final  order  of  the  board  changing  the  boundaries  is  in  most 
jurisdictions  required  to  be  filed  for  record  in  the  recorder's  office  in 
each  county  concerned. 

Annexation. — Contiguous  lands  lying  adjacent  to  any  district  may 
be  admitted  upon  petition  signed  by  the  owners  or  holders  of  title  to 
the  land  to  be  included,  or  by  a  majority  of  such  persons,  who  must 
in  some  States  represent  at  least  one-half  of  the  lands  to  be  annexed. 
This  petition  must  describe  the  lands  proposed  to  be  included  and  be 
acknowledged  and  filed  with  the  district  board.  In  Idaho  it  is  pro- 
A'ided  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  may  sign  a  petition  for  the  in- 
clusion of  unentered  public  lands,  while  in  California  public  lands 
of  the  United  States  adjoining  a  district  may  be  annexed  without 
petition  uj^on  order  or  resolution  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the 
district. 

Same — Hearing.— Kite^r  due  notice  has  been  published  the  board 
meets  for  hearing  on  the  proposed  annexation,  at  which  time  objec- 
tions if  any  are  considered.  Objection  may  generally  be  made  by 
'*  any  person  interested  in  the  district  or  the  proposed  change  of  its 
boundaries,"  and  any  person  to  be  affected  by  the  change  who  does 
not  object  is  deemed  to  have  consented. 

Same — Election  may  he  heJd. — If  there  are  no  objections  offered 
at  the  hearing,  the  board  may,  in  its  discretion,  include  the  lands  or 
reject  the  petition.  But  if  objections  are  offered  by  proper  persons 
aiid  are  not  waived,  the  board  must  call  an  election  to  determine 
whether  or  not  the  change  of  boundaries  shall  be  ccmsummated.  A 
majority  of  the  votes  cast  at  this  election  determines  the  issue  in  most 
States,  although  there  are  a  few  exceptions  to  this  rule,  Oregon,  for 
instance,  requiring  a  three-fifths  majority.  Some  States,  also,  ex- 
pressly give  a  riglit  of  appeal  to  the  courts  by  any  objector  whose 
protests  are  overruled  by  the  district  board. 

Same — Protest. — Some  States  provide  that  if  a  written  protest 
signed  by  a  majority  of  the  electors  is  filed  within  30  days  from  the 
making  of  the  order  including  the  lands,  such  order  and  all  proceed- 
ings upon  w^hich  it  is  based  are  held  for  naught. 

Same — Payments  upon  admission. — The  board  of  directors  may 
require,  as  a  prerequisite  for  admission  into  the  district,  that  the 


< 


CHANGE    IN   BOUNDARIES.  79 

owners  of  the  lands  to  be  included  pay  to  the  district  such  respective 
sums,  as  nearly  as  can  be  estimated  by  the  board,  as  said  petitioners 
or  their  grantors  woukl  have  been  i-ecjuired  to  pay  to  such  district 
as  assessments  had  such  lands  been  originally  included  in  such 
district. 

The  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  in  construing  a 
provision  of  this  character  in  the  Colorado  law  held  that  lands  in- 
cluded without  being  required  to  contrilnite  their  proportionate 
share  of  the  expense  of  the  project  from  the  beginning  were  never- 
theless legally  annexed  to  the  district.  The  enactment  in  (piestion  is 
"  for  the  benefit  of  the  district  and  is  not  made  a  condition  precedent 
by  the  statute,  and  the  board  waived  the  requirement  of  payment  at 
that  time  by  its  action  in  including  the  lands."  (Nile  Irr.  Dist.  v. 
Gas  Securities  Co.,  248  Fed.  (1918),  861.) 

One  of  the  iuiportant  considerations  often  bearing  upon  annexa- 
tion questions  is  the  sufficiency  of  the  water  supply  to  irrigate  the 
lands  to  be  included  without  jeopardizing  the  productivity  of  the 
lands  alreadj"  incorporated.  California  expressly  gives  the  district 
board  the  power  to  impose  upon  the  lands  to  be  included  such  proper 
conditions  as  will  entireh"  protect  the  lands  embraced  within  the 
original  district  boundaries.  For  example,  it  may  provide  for  a 
priority  of  water  rights  in  favor  of  the  original  areas,  or  make  an 
additional  annual  charge  against  lands  seeking  to  be  included,  or 
enter  into  such  other  arrangement  as  may  appear  equitable. 

Exclusion. — The  exclusion  questions  about  to  be  discussed  relate 
to  a  proceeding  frequently  undertaken  long  subsequent  to  the  settle- 
ment of  boundaries  at  the  hearing  upon  organization.  The  proceed- 
ing differs  in  legal  character  from  exclusion  of  lands  described  in 
the  petition  by  the  board  of  directors  at  the  original  hearing  for  the 
formation  of  the  district.  The  petition  therefor  of  landowners  who 
have  been  included  in  the  district  is  sometimes  founded  upon  a  desire 
for  immunity  from  assessment  and  levy,  and  has  an  important  bear- 
ing upon  the  credit  of  the  district. 

The  district  when  originally  organized  often  is  not  in  possession 
of  final  plans,  and,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  frequently  unable,  on 
account  of  lack  of  credit,  to  make  an  exhaustiA^e  survey  to  determine 
where  the  diversion  from  the  river  can  feasibly  be  made,  and  to  map 
the  alignment  of  the  canal  and  the  confines  of  the  irrigable  area. 
When  a  final  surve}^  has  been  made  and  final  estimates  prepared  and 
the  plans  adopted,  the  organization  has  often  been  perfected  and 
bonds  issued.  Thereupon  lands  lying  too  high  to  be  irrigated  from 
the  system  are  morally,  and  should  be  legally,  entitled  to  exclusion. 

In  various  States  provision  is  made  to  the  effect  that  where  from 
any  natural  cause  lands  can  not  be  irrigated,  the  organizing  board 
is  without  jurisdiction  to  include  them  and  the  taxing  board  is  with- 
out jurisdiction  to  assess  them  for  district  charges. 

Such  a  provision  has  been  construed  in  a  Nebraska  case  where 
complainants  sought  an  injunction  against  assessment  and  exclusion 
from  a  district.  The  court  reached  the  conclusion  embodied  in  the 
following  paragraph : 

Whether  a  particular  tract  of  land  will  be  benefited  by  a  proposed  system 
of  irrigation  is  a  question  which  the  legislature  has  confided  to  the  county 
board.  Whether  a  particular  tract  of  land  from  some  natural  cause  can  not 
be  irrigated  is  a  question  which  goes  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  county  board 


80  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

over  such  tract,  and  may  be  raised  at  any  time  in  a  proper  case,  because 
section  49,  supra,  expressly  denies  the  jurisdiction  of  the  county  board  to 
include  such  land  in  ;iu  irrigation  district  or  to  tax  it  for  irrigation  purposes. 
(Andrews  v.  Lillian  Irr.  Co.,  97  N.  W.,  336;  66  Nebr.,  458.) 

There  is,  however,  another  chiss  of  cases  less  meritorious  which 
consists  of  those  Avho  desire  exckision  upon,  the  ground  that  they 
are  already  in  possession  of  a  water  supply.  These  landowners 
sometimes  have  a  partial  supply  and  will  be  benefited  by  an  irriga- 
tion system  which  would  confer  upon  them  a  supplemental  supply 
whereby  the  productivity  of  the  lands  can  be  increased,  and  it  would 
appear  that  the  plea  for  exclusion  could  equally  well  have  been  pre- 
sented at  the  time  of  organization  as  provided  by  all  of  the  statutes. 
Such  timel}'  presentation  would  afford  release  from  the  district 
before  the  bond  purchasers  had  relied  upon  these  lands  as  part  of 
their  security. 

Exclusion  desired  on  account  of  seepage. — There  is  a  third  class 
consisting  of  owners  of  lands  which  are  without  a  water  supply  and 
are  irrigable,  but  where  the  lands,  through  artificial  rise  of  seepage 
due  to  the  surrounding  irrigation,  have  reached  the  status  no  longer 
requiring  irrigation.  In  other  cases  the  rise  of  ground  water  has 
proceeded  to  the  point  where  the  lands  can  no  longer  be  cultivated. 
The  hardship  resulting  from  the  assessment  of  the  last-described 
lands  is  obviously  very  great,  and  accordingly  the  argument  for 
their  exclusion  from  the  district  and  release  from  its  obligations  is 
extremely  plausible  from  the  purely  local  point  of  view. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  clear  that  their  exclusion  constitutes  a  lessen- 
ing of  the  security  of  the  credit  of  the  district,  and  the  statutes 
should  not,  and  in  the  main  do  not.  provide  for  such  exclusion  as 
would  release  them  from  liability  without  the  consent  of  the  bond- 
holders. 

This  is  as  it  should  be,  for  the  reason  that  the  responsibility  for  the 
plans  of  the  district,  the  feasibility  of  the  project,  and  the  construc- 
tion of  or  neglect  to  construct  drainage  works  is  a  responsibility 
which  nnist  be  borne  by  the  district  and  State  officials  and  not  by 
bond  purchasers. 

The  relief  from  the  difficulty  is  not  through  the  exclusion  of  sucli 
lands  and  their  release  from  the  obligations  of  the  district,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  would  seem  to  be  in  the  continuance  of  the  solidarity 
of  the  district  lands  and  the  adoption  of  adequate  means  for  drainage. 

References  to  the  exclusion  proceedings  will  be  found  under  the 
heading  of  each  of  the  various  States.  Several  of  the  States  pro- 
vide for  exclusion  only  where  written  consent  of  the  bondholders  is 
procured,  and  most  of  them  require  the  consent  in  writing  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  wdiere  contract  with  the  United  States 
has  been  made.  Others  provide  for  exclusion  without  the  consent 
of  the  bondholders,  but  specify  that  the  lands  remain  liable  for 
assessment  and  subject  to  every  charge  that  they  would  have  been 
subject  to  had  the  exclusion  not  been  granted.  A  few  others  permit 
exclusion  without  the  consent  of  the  bondholders  and  free  the  lands 
from  charges. 

Proceedings  for  exclusion. — Petition  for  this  relief  may  be  pre- 
sented by  the  landowners  desiring  the  exclusion,  or  in  some  States 
by  a  majority  of  them,  and  must  describe  the  lands  to  be  excluded. 
In  some  States  the  ground  for  relief  must  be  stated  in  the  petition, 


•iNTERDISTRICT  COOPP^RATIOX  AND  MERGER.  81 

and  in  the  niajoiity  of  States  the  written  consent  of  the  hohlers  of 
all  outstanding-  bonds  or  the  consent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
as  the  case  may  be,  nuist  be  filed  therewith.  In  the  absence  of  the 
creditors'  assent,  in  the  majority  of  States,  the  jH'tition  must  be 
denied. 

After  published  notice,  hearing  is  had  upon  the  petition  before  tho 
board  or  directors,  at  Avhich  time  any  person  interested  in  or  atfected 
by  the  chancre  may  ajipear  and  show  cause  in  writinij  why  the  ]-)eti- 
tion  should  be  denied.  The  faihii'e  of  any  person  to  ai)pear  and 
object  shall  be  taken  as  his  assent  to  the  exclusion  of  the  lands  or  any 
part  thereof  from  the  district. 

Order  hy  the  hoard. — If.  after  hcarina'.  the  board  deems  it  not  for 
the  best  interests  of  the  district  that  the  lands  be  excluded,  it  denies 
the  petition;  and  if  it  (Uhmu  it  for  the  best  interest  of  the  district 
that  the  lands  or  some  ])art  thei-eof  be  excluded,  and  if  no  objection 
has  been  filed,  the  board  may  order  the  exclusion  of  the  lands  named 
in  the  j^etition  or  any  part  thereof. 

Election  lohen  necessary. — In  case  any  person  has  jjresented  his 
objection  in  the  proper  manner  at  the  hearing  and  has  not  with- 
drawn the  same,  an  election  is  called,  at  Avhich  a  majority  of  the 
vot^s  cast  determines  wdiether  the  lands  shall  be  excluded  or  not. 
The  board  then  issues  an  order  in  conformity  with  the  result. 

Interested  parties  are  sometimes  given  a  right  of  appeal  to  the 
courts  from  an  order  by  the  board  denying  the  petition.  In  other 
jurisdictions  no  provision  is  made  for  an  appeal;  but  the  landowner 
does  not  appear  to  be  left  without  a  remedy  even  in  the  absence  of 
an  express  grant  of  the  right  of  aii])eal,  except  in  those  causes  Avhere 
the  matter  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  board  of  directors  or  to 
the  suffrage  of  the  qualified  electors  of  the  district,  and  the  lands 
might  lawfully  be  either  included  or  excluded.  In  other  words,  if 
the  law  specifies,  as  most  of  the  statutes  do.  that  lands  of  a  certain 
defined  character  shall  not  be  included  within  a  district  or  taxed  for 
the  purposes  thereof,  the  owners  of  such  lands  can  not  be  denied  an 
appropriate  remedy  against  an  erroneous  decision  of  the  district 
board.  In  California  this  remedy  was  sought  and  allowed  by  the 
court  through  the  medium  of  a  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  the 
board  to  exclude  lands  which  the  law  had  expressly  stated  w^re  not 
to  be  included  in  an  irrigation  district  and  which  in  this  particular 
case  were  lands  already  having  an  adequate  water  right  derived 
from  another  source  appurtenant  thereto.  (Harelson  v.  South  San 
Joaquin  Irr.  Dist..  128  Pac.  1010:  20  Calif.  App.  (1013),  324.) 

I>;TKi?i)isTinrT  Coopfhattox   and  ^MF.nr.Kn. 

('oopei'di'n'c  coiixt nict'/ori. — Provision  for  cooperation  between  dis- 
tricts without  mergei-  or  loss  of  separate  corporate  character  is  made 
by  the  Texas  and  Oregon  laAvs  to  the  end  that  joint  action  may  be 
taken  by  two  or  moi'e  districts  desiring  to  construct  or  purchase 
w^orks  in  connnon.  Authority  in  such  case  is  granted  for  a  joint 
contract  and  the  employment  of  a  general  manager  who  shall  liave 
chai'ge  of  the  common  enterprise.  No  contract  is  valid  until  ratified 
by  a  majority  vote  of  each  district.     (See  infi'a.  ]).  151  and  p.  142.) 

100047—20 6 


82  HANDBOOK   OF  IRRIGATION  DISTRICT  LAWS. 

Overhead  or  reservoli-  districts. — There  is,  however,  probably  a 
growing  need  in  some  localities  for  provision  for  the  creation  of 
districts  which  might  embrace  within  their  boundaries  other  irri- 
gation districts.  No  State  has  yet  made  a  statutory  effort  in  this 
direction. 

The  desirability  of  such  provision  of  law  would  perhaps  most 
fiequently  arise  as  the  result  of  several  irrigation  districts  having 
joint  interests  in  the  construction,  operation,  and  maintenance  of 
storage  works,  each  district  desiring  to  retain  independence  as  re- 
gards its  own  diversion  and  distribution  system. 

In  the  case  of  a  long  river  these  districts  might  be  many  miles 
apart,  and  consolidation  or  merger  Avould  then  be  unpopular  and 
impractical  in  matters  of  local  administration,  while  the  interests 
in  common  for  the  administration  of  the  storage  system  might  best 
be  subserved  through  an  overhead  or  reservoir  district.  Such  a 
corporation  would  have  a  legal  entity  without  disturbing  those  of 
the  various  districts  and  other  organizations  serving  lands  within 
its  confines.  The  overhead  district  would  be  especially  valuable  in 
case  of  a  need  for  important  replacements  of  storage  structure  or  in 
the  event  of  an  emergency  when  the  necessity  for  contracting  with 
numerous  individuals,  private  corporations,  and  districts  would  in 
many  cases  involve  a  large  amount  of  negotiation. 

The  statutory  plan  would  need  to  be  safeguarded  with  great  care 
to  the  end  that  the  prior  and  subsequent  creditors  of  all  districts 
receive  full  protection.  This  could  best,  and  perhaps  could  only,  be 
attained  by  judicious  State  supervision  and  registration  of  bonds. 

DistHcts  for  interstate  projects. — The  fact  that  a  number  of  the 
large  projects,  which  must  be  undertaken  before  anything  like  com- 
plete utilization  of  the  land  and  water  assets  of  the  West  has  been 
attained,  will  have  an  interstate  character  has  not  received  recogni- 
tion by  the  legislatures  of  the  various  States  involved.  Already 
there  are  several  Federal  projects  constructed  having  irrigated 
lands  in  two  States.  Examples  are  the  Klamath  project,  in  Oregon 
and  California;  the  Yuma,  in  Arizona  and  California;  and  the 
North  Platte,  in  Nebraska  and  Wyoming;  while  the  Rio  Grande 
project  is  an  interstate  and  an  international  project,  having  lands  in 
New  Mexico,  Texas,  and  Mexico. 

Same — Method  that  of  cooperat'ton  ratJccr  than  eorpcn-ate  unity. — 
The  irrigation  district,  having  taxing  powers  conferred  by  an  indi- 
vidual State,  and  constituting  for  many  purposes  a  legal  subdivision 
of  that  State,  can  not  exercise  functions  outside  the  boundaries  of 
the  State  which  created  it  and  conferred  upon  it  the  requisite  powers. 
No  effort,  therefore,  toward  the  establishment  of  a  district  having 
interstate  jurisdiction  has  been  made.  A  few  States,  however,  have 
made  provisions  which  greatly  facilitate  cooperation  between  irri- 
gation districts  formed  in  different  States. 

Same — California  statute. — California  has  the  most  comprehensive 
enactment  on  the  subject.  (L.  1917,  ch.  591,  p.  905.)  There  irriga- 
tion districts  are  authorized  to  contract  with  irrigation  districts  in  ad- 
joining States  for  "  joint  construction,  acquisition,  management,  and 
control  of  diverting,  impounding,  or  distibuting  works  for  irriga- 
tion or  draining  the  lands  within  the  boundaries  of  their  respective 
districts."  The  agreements  maj'^  provide  for  joint  or  several  owner- 
ship, or  ownership  in  common,  of  the  property  necessary  or  con- 


TNTERDISTPJCT  COOPERATIOX  AND  MERGER.  83 

^•enient  for  such  cooperation,  and  jurisdiction  over  controversies  is 
granted  to  any  coni-t  of  competent  jurisdiction  in  the  State. 

It  is  expressly  dechired  to  be  hiwful  to  divert  water  from  California 
for  impounding  in  the  adjoining  State,  or  otherwise,  for  distribution 
to  the  lands  of  the  cooperating  district,  regardlevSs  of  State  lines,  or 
to  divert  water  from  such  adjoining  State  for  impounding  or  other- 
wise for  distribution  to  the  lands  of  the  cooperating  district  in  Cali- 
fornia or  in  the  adjoining  State.  And  in  so  far  as  is  necessar3\  the 
cooperating  district  in  the  adjoining  State  may  hold  title  to  property 
in  the  adjoining  State. 

Joint  action  in  securing  imgation  vwrks. — Other  States  haA'e  some- 
Avhat  less  elaborate  provisions  permitting  one  or  more  irrigation  dis- 
tricts within  such  States  to  unite  with  one  or  more  adjacent  irriga- 
tion districts  organized  under  the  laws  of  any  adjoining  State  for 
the  pui'chase  or  construction  of  a  common  system  of  works  for  the 
irrigation  of  lands  within  such  respective  districts.  Such  districts 
are  jointly  given  the  same  power  of  condemnation  as  is  granted  to 
one  district  alone.  The  cost  of  the  construction  or  purchase  of  the 
irrigation  system  is  required  to  be  apportioned  to  each  district  in 
proportion  to  the  irrigable  acreage  in  each  district,  and  the  districts 
have  undivided  interests  in  the  title  to  the  works  in  the  same  pro- 
portion.    (Gen.  L.  Oregon  1917.  p.  764;  L.  Idaho,  1917.  p.  73.) 

At  least  one  State  (Idaho)  provides,  so  far  as  one  State  can, 
for  a  joint  commission,  in  the  case  of  interstate  projects,  not  exceed- 
ing seven  in  number,  who  shall  be  chosen  by  the  boards  of  directors 
of  the  respective  districts.  Representation  on  this  board  is  appor- 
tioned as  nearly  as  practicable  among  the  various  districts  in  accord- 
ance with  the  acreage  for  which  water  is  provided.  The  commission 
has  the  control  and  management  of  the  works  held  jointly,  subject 
to  the  boards  of  directors  of  the  districts  who  can  at  will  recall  their 
respective  representatives  on  the  commission. 

Merger  or  consolidation. — Many  of  the  States  uiake  no  provision 
for  the  merger  or  consolidation  of  existing  irrigation  districts,  but 
the  need  for  legislation  along  this  line  is  beinning  to  be  recognized. 

The  Oregon  Legislature  has  authorized  the  merger  of  irrigation 
districts.  There  the  board  of  directors  of  any  district  desiring  to 
be  included  within  another,  addresses  a  petition  to  the  board  of  such 
other  district,  showing  the  indebtedness  of  the  district  proposed  to 
be  included  and  the  boundaries  thereof.  The  board  to  whom  the 
petition  is  addressed  may  accept  or  reject  the  same  in  its  discretion. 
If  it  accepts,  the  board  of  the  district  desiring  to  be  included,  orders 
an  election  in  that  disti-ict,  and  the  question  is  decided  by  a  majority 
vote  thereof.  The  indebtedness  of  each  district  is  then  ascertained 
and  entered  upon  the  records  and  a  division  of  such  indebtedness  or- 
dered, after  which  the  consolidation  is  complete.  (Gen.  L.  1017.  v), 
772.) 

Another  plan  is  adopted  in  Nevada.  The  boards  of  directors  of 
two  or  more  districts  in  that  State  desiring  to  be  consolidated  into  a 
single  district,  petition  the  county  commissioners  to  order  an  election 
upon  the  question.  This  petition  states  in  detail  the  terms  upon 
which  the  consolidation  is  proposed  to  be  made.  The  county  board 
then  submits  the  matter  to  the  State  engineer  for  investigation  and 
report.  After  such  report  is  received  the  county  board  acts  upon 
the  petition.     If  this  is  allowed,  an  order  is  made  fixing  the  date  of 


84  HANDBOOK    OF    IRPJGATTOX    DTSTEICT   LAWS. 

the.  election.  A  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  in  each  district  is  suf- 
ficient to  authorize  the  consolidation.  The  county  board  then  dividevS 
the  district  into  proper  divisions  and  appoints  a  director  for  each 
division,  who  serves  until  the  next  general  election  of  officers,  at 
which  time  a  board  of  directors  is  elected.  In  case  either  district 
has  entered  into  contract  with  the  United  States,  no  consolidation 
may  be  made  without  first  obtaining  and  filing  with  the  board  of 
countv  conmiissioners  the  written  assent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Inte- 
i-ior.  '  (L.  1915,  p.  445.) 

The  most  apparent  weakness  in  both  of  the  methods  above  de- 
scribed is  the  failure  to  make  express  provision  relative  to  bonds 
issued  by  the  respective  districts  prior  to  their  consolidation.  Where 
the  districts  to  be  consolidated  have  outstanding  debts  such  obliga- 
tions can  not  be  merged  unless  the  bondholders  assent. 

The  merger  of  obligations  of  district's  having  debts  in  an  ecjual 
amount  per  acre  or  upon  some  other  ground  equivalent,  might  still 
be  sul)ject  to  attack  unless  the  consent  of  the  bondholders  was  re- 
quired, for  the  reason  that  the  bondholders  in  extending  credit  to 
the  district  would  be  deemed  by  the  courts  to  have  become  entitled 
to  rely  upon  the  lands  of  the  original  district  as  security  without 
sharing  such  security  with  any  other  irrigation  district's  creditors. 
The  merger  might  or  might  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  furnish  equiv- 
alent substitute  security,  but  in  legal  principle  would  seem  to  con- 
stitute an  objectionable  substitution  of  security.  The  statute  should 
safeouard  districts  aiiainst  an  attempted  merger  of  indebtedness  such 
as  might  lead  to  litigation  by  prohibiting  consolidation  of  the  in- 
debtedness of  two  or  more  districts  without  the  consent  of  the 
creditors. 

The  California  statutes  relating  to  consolidation  and  reorganiza- 
tion of  swamp  land  and  reclauiation  districts  contain  a  very  satis- 
factory })rovision  on  this  subject,  which  is  quoted  below : 

Such  coiisolidiitioii  iiiid  reoriiMuizntion  sli:ill  in  im  iniiniiei'  invalidate  the 
!ndel)tedne.ss  of  the  oiijiiiiai  districts;  and  all  the  laws,  rnles,  and  restihitions 
for  the  assessinii',  levyin.u',  and  c(illectin,ti  taxes  or  a.ssessnieiits  in  said  dis- 
ti'icts  sliall  rcMnain  and  be  in  force,  and  all  asscssnipnts  and  collections  re- 
qnii'ed  for  the  iiayment  of  the  then  outstanding-  indebtedness  in  said  districts 
shall  be  the  same  as  thoirsxh  they  had  not  consolidated  and  i-eor;.;anized  until 
such  indebtedness  shall  be  paid  and  liquidated.  ( l>eerin,i;"s  Political  Code  of 
California,  .sec.  B489.) 

It  is  probable  that  the  courts  Avould  bring  about  the  same  result 
irrespective  of  statute,  but  express  statutory  declaration  has  many 
advantages. 

■  Dissolution. 

K.fpre.sx  prov'hsioiis  )iece8sary. — Irrigation  districts,  being  in  the 
nature  of  public  or  municipal  corporations,  can  not  be  dissolved 
without  express  statutorv  authorization.  (People  r.  Selma  Irr.  Dist., 
32  Pac.  Rep.,  1047;  98  Calif.,  206.) 

Practically  all  States  permit  dls.^olutlon.—'WhW^  the  original  Cal- 
ifornia act  appears  to  have  made  no  provision  for  dissolution  of 
districts,  practically  all  irrigation  district  States  now  have  enact- 
ments on  the  subject  which  in  their  diversity  are  quite  confusing 
upon  a  mere  cursory  examination.     On  a  closer  view  the  general 


DISSOLUTION.  85 

plans  and  aims  of  the  various  statutes  are  found  to  be  practically 
identical  in  the  great  majority  of  the  States. 

Creditors  to  he  protected. — The  importance  of  equitable  dissolu- 
tion laws  from  the  standpoint  of  the  bondholders  and  other  creditors 
of  the  district  is  obvious.  It  is  essential  that  payment  of  the  bonds 
and  other  obligations  of  the  district  be  fully  provided  for  in  any  plan 
for  dissolution,  except  to  the  extent  that  the  law  is  to  partake  of  the 
character  of  a  bankruptcy  act. 

Two  general  methods  of  'procedure. — A  number  of  States  permit 
the  question  of  dissolution  and  the  settlement  of  the  affairs  of  the 
district  to  be  determined  by  the  district  itself,  either  by  the  board 
of  directors  or  through  an  election.  But  as  neither  the  board  nor  the 
electors  can  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  wholly  disinterested  parties* 
it  is  believed  that  the  bondholders  and  other  creditors  are  more  fully 
protected  by  the  laws  of  those  States  which  require  the  matter  of  dis- 
solution to  be  finally  passed  upon  by  the  courts  after  it  has  beert 
assented  to  by  a  majority  of  the  electors  of  the  district. 

General  outline  of  the  statutes. — While  it  is  impracticable  to  dis- 
cuss the  laws  of  each  State  in  detail,  and  well-nigh  impossible  to 
join  them  in  one  connected  outline  of  procedure  owing  to  their  great 
difference  in  detail  provisions,  the  following  statement  seeks  to  cover 
the  general  features. 

Steps  looking  toward  dissolution  are  initiated  by  a  petition  signed 
by  a  designated  j)ercentage,  generally  a  majorit}^,  of  the  assessment 
payers,  electors,  or  landowners  of  the  district.  In  some  States  the 
petitioners  must  also  represent  a  majority  of  the  acreage;  while  in 
Utah  they  must  represent  a  majority  of  the  acre-feet  of  water.  In 
Colorado  a  petition  for  dissolution  may  be  signed  by  75  per  cent  or 
more  of  the  holders  of  the  bonds  of  the  district. 

Sometimes  the  petition  is  required  to  set  forth  the  fact  that  there 
are  no  outstanding  bonds  or  other  obligations.  In  other  States  the 
petition  must  propose  a  plan  of  settlement  of  the  outstanding  obli- 
gations, if  any.  Still  other  States  provide  two  distinct  methods  of 
procedure,  one  applicable  to  districts  having  outstanding  obligations, 
and  the  other  to  districts  whose  obligations  have  been  fully  settled. 

Following  the  petition  a  special  election  is  called,  at  which  a 
majority  of  the  votes  cast  is  generally  sufficient  to  determine  the  issue. 
If  the  election  favors  dissolution,  then  in  some  States  the  directors 
appear  before  the  appropriate  court  with  an  application  for  an  order 
dissolving  the  district,  the  court  retaining  jurisdiction  until  the  pro- 
ceedings have  been  completed,  the  affairs  of  the  district  settled,  and 
the  district  dissolved.  The  right  of  appeal  to  a  higher  court  is  pre- 
served. Elsewhere  the  settlement  of  obligations  and  the  dissolution 
of  the  district  are  handled  by  the  board  of  directors,  and  no  automatic 
provision  made  for  access  to  the  courts. 

Adjustment  of  indehtedness. — Under  either  method,  the  next  step 
is  the  adjustment  of  the  obligations  of  the  district  by  settlement  in 
full  or  compromise  as  may  be  found  feasible.  For  this  purpose  the 
canals,  franchises,  and  other  property  of  the  district  may  be  sold,  the 
method  of  sale  being  generally  prescribed  by  statute.  The  obliga- 
tions of  the  district  are  then  liquidated  to  "the  extent  of  the  funds 
available. 

Some  of  the  States  provide,  however,  that  the  district,  in  redeem- 
ing its  bonds,  "  shall  in  no  case  pay  more  than  the  market  value  of 


86  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

such  outstanding  bonds,  with  interest,  u])  to  the  time  of  payment." 
This  might  in  some  cases  amount  to  a  virtual  repudiation  on  the  part 
of  the  district,  whose  contractual  obligation  is,  of  course,  for  the  face 
value  of  the  bonds,  regardless  of  their  market  price.  Grave  doubts 
are  entertained  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  such  a  provision,  which 
appears  to  be  an  impairment  of  the  obligation  of  the  district's  con- 
tracts; and  it  seems  to  be  also  open  to  the  strongest  criticism  from 
the  standpoint  of  public  policy.  A  district  contemplating  dissolution 
might  be  strongly  tempted  under  such  a  law  to  engage  in  a  propa- 
ganda of  misrepresentation  for  the  express  purpose  of  decrying  and 
minimizing  its  assets  and  thus  reducing  the  market  value  of  its  bonds. 
The  clause  above  quoted  is  found  in  the  laws  of  Nebraska  (R.  S.  1913, 
sec.  3521),  Oklahoma  (L.  1915,  p.  535),  North  Dakota  (L.  1917,  p. 
159),  and  South  Dakota  (L.  1916-17,  p.  586).  The  laws  of  the  same 
States  also  contain,  either  verbatim  or  substantially,  the  following 
language : 

In  all  cases  where  bonds  and  other  obligations  of  irrigation  districts  shall  be 
issued  after  the  passage  of  this  act.  such  bonds  and  obligations  shall  become 
subject  to  redemption  by  the  board  of  directors  of  any  irrigation  district  as 
soon  as  the  property  and  franchise  of  such  district  shall  be  sold  after  such 
district  has  elected  to  dissolve  as  a  district  as  herein  provided.  (L.  North 
Dakota,  1917,  p.  160.) 

Generally  provision  is  made  that  if  the  amount  realized  from  the 
sale  of  the  property  of  the  district,  together  with  such  other  moneys 
as  may  be  available,  is  not  sufficient  to  pay  or  settle  the  indebtedness, 
as.sessments  are  made  against  the  lands  within  the  district  until  the 
necessary  amoimt  is  raised. 

The  final  order  dissolving  the  district  is  filed  for  record  with  the 
recorder  of  each  county  in  which  lands  of  the  district  are  situated. 

Where  contract  has  been  made  with  the  United  States  no  action 
shall  be  taken  looking  toward  the  dissolution  of  the  district  without 
the  written  assent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

The  Texas  statute  is  unique,  three  methods  of  dissolution  being 
given  as  alternatives.     (Infra,  p.  149.) 

The  Colomdo  plan. — Perhaps  the  most  detailed  of  the  enactments 
upon  dissolution  under  direction  of  the  court  is  that  of  Colorado 
(L.  1917,  pp.  307-313),  which  has  been  covered  quite  fully  in  the 
digest  of  the  laws  of  that  State  (infra,  p.  105).  There  appears  to  be 
one  feature  of  this  statute,  however,  which  may  be  justly  criticized, 
and  that  is  a  provision  in  section  9,  page  312,  for  the  release  of  any 
particular  tract  of  land  after  dissolution  from  the  lien  for  district 
obligations.  Such  release  is  secured  by  paying  the  proportionate 
share  of  such  tract  of  the  bonded  indebtedness.  But  the  harmful 
effect  of  this  provision  is  mitigated  by  the  clause  that  "no  plan  of 
liquidation  shall  be  approved  by  the  court,  which  does  not  provide 
for  the  untimate  payment  or  liquidation  of  all  the  indebtedness  of  the 
district  and  adequate  security  for  the  holders  thereof  "  (sec.  10,  p.  312) , 
-Sind  that  in  at  least  two  other  places  in  the  same  act  the  legislature 
expresses  the  intention  to  secure  the  ultimate  payment  of  all  in- 
debtedness. 

But  a  danger  rests  in  the  fact  that  the  court  is  not  precluded  from 
deeming  the  pro  rata  apportionment  of  the  debt  in  such  fashion  as 
fully  to  discharge  the  debt,  if  the  assessments  are  fully  paid,  as  a 
provision  for  the  liquidation  of  all  the  indebtedness  and  as  such  com- 
pliance with  the  statute.    Whereas  in  few  cases  where  dissolution  is 


ARIZONA  STATUTES.  87 

undertaken  will  it  in  fact  discharge  the  debt.  This  is  another  case 
where  apportionment  and  discliarge  of  liens  is  strongly  objectionable. 
(See  su])ra.  p.  57.)  The  flavoi-  of  the  statute  is  not  improved  by  a 
provision  that  a  corporation  may  be  formed  to  acquire  the  assets  of 
the  district. 

Scope  of  Ensuincj  Outline  of  Individual  State  Statutes. 

While  most  readers  of  this  work  will  have  ready  access  to  the  laws 
of  their  own  jurisdictions,  comparative!}^  few  will  have  opportunity 
to  compare  the  statutes  of  most  of  the  others  of  the  IT  irrigation 
district  States.  For  this  reason  it  is  believed  that  a  digest  of  the 
laws  of  the  various  States  prepared  not  for  the  purpose  of  furnish- 
ing detailed  information-,  but  merely  tx)  sketch  their  outlines  and 
illustrate  the  somewhat  diti'erent  angles  from  which  the  legislatures 
liave  approached  the  subject,  will  be  of  value. 

Such  is  the  principal  aim  of  the  following  brief  summary  of  the 
hiws  of  the  respective  States.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  give  a 
comprehensive  survey  of  the  statutes,  those  points  wherein  a  law 
follows  the  usual  form  in  a  general  way  being  merely  touched  upon 
or  perhaps  omitted  altogether. 

On  the  other  hand,  unique  provisions,  especially  those  exhibiting 
new  tendencies  or  pointing  the  wa}'  to  possible  future  developments, 
whether  for  good  or  ill,  are  given  more  prominence,  and  sometimes 
€ommented  upon  with  a  view  to  encouraging  constructive  compari- 
son and  criticism. 

The  irrigation  district,  however,  is  the  creature  of  statute,  and 
those  who  have  to  do  with  them  must  necessarily  consult  the  law 
itself  constantly.  A  digest,  therefore,  Avould  be  a  dangerous,  rather 
than  a  helpful  substitute  for  the  laAv  itself,  if  used  as  a  basis  for 
action  in  irrigation  district  affairs. 

Hence,  we  have  purposely  avoided  giving  the  periods  during 
^vhich  jurisdictional  publications  run,  the  requirements  as  to  what 
important  notices  should  contain,  the  statutory  dates  and  periods  in 
the  assessment  procedure,  and  other  matters  of  a  similar  character. 

Arizona.^ 

FormMion. — The  Arizona  irrigation  district  act  is  to  be  found  in 
the  session  laws  of  the  second  special  session  of  the  legislature.  (L. 
1915,  ch.  8.  p.  62.)  This  act  was  an  entirely  new  law%  repealing  the 
former  irrigation  district  act  and  granting  to  any  irrigation  districts 
formed  under  the  previous  act  the  privilege  of  coming  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  new  act  after  a  special  election  carried  bv  a  majority 
vote.     (Sees.  29  and  30.) 

Irrigation  districts  in  this  State  are  initiated  by  a  majority  of  the 
resident  holders  of  title,  or  evidence  of  title,  including  homestead 
entrymen  or  purchasers  of  State  lands  who  petition  for  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  district  to  the  board  of  supervisors.  The  object  of  organ- 
ization is  simply  that  of  provision  for  the  irrigation  of  the  district 
lands.     Owners  of  lands  included  within  the  iDOundaries  who  have 

^  See.  pa«e  above  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion.  See  also  .\ddenda,  p. 
165,  for  1919  ameuduients. 


88  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

constructed  irrigation  works  which  have  availed  to  supply  not  less 
than  '25  per  cent  of  the  lands  so  owned,  or  which  shall  avail,  within  a 
])eriod  of  one  year  after  the  organization  of  the  district,  for  the  irri- 
gation of  such  aggregate  areas,  shall  be  exempted  from  the  provisions 
of  the  law,  if  the  water  has  actually  been  appropriated  to  beneficial 
use  for  such  percentage  of  area.     (Sees.  1  and  2.) 

Districts  are  authorized  to  construct  and  maintain  levees  for  the 
]:)rotection  of  district  lands  from  overfloAV,  the  provisions  of  law  being 
applicable  for  that  purpose.     (Sec.  14.) 

Judicial  notice  is  required  to  be  taken  of  the  existence  of  irrigation 
districts  after  the  filing  of  certified  copy  of  the  order  of  the  county 
board  declaring  the  organization  thereof,  and  a  copy  of  such  order 
shall  be  conclusive  evidence  of  the  legal  sufficiency  of  all  steps  taken 
under  the  act  in  all  court  proceedings,  except  in  a  (juo  warranto  pro- 
ceeding instituted  within  one  vear  from  the  date  of  such  filing. 
(Sec.  10.) 

Elections  mid  electorate. — Upon  the  organization  election  a  ma- 
joiity  of  the  votes  cast  is  sufficient.     (Sec.  i2,  par.  n.) 

Electors  under  the  Arizona  laws  are  defined  in  two  ways:  "Quali- 
fied electors  for  bond  issues  and  special  assessments"  must  be  real 
l)roi)erty  taxpayers  owning  land  and  residing  on  lands  within  the 
district  for  district  ])iirposes  an<l  must  he  qualified  electors  of  the 
political  subdivision  in  which  the  district  is  situated.  (Sec.  ?>.) 
"  General  electors  "  are  qualified  electors  under  the  general  laws  of 
the  State  holding  land  in  the  district  and  residing  in  the  countv. 
(Sec.  3^.) 

The  recall  pro\  isions  under  the  Arizona  constitution  are  atlopted  as 
I'egards  irrigation  district  directors.     (Sec.  18^.) 

District  inclehtedriess. — Contracts  involving  more  than  $10,000  and 
not  more  than  $25,000  i-equire  written  authorization,  by  not  less  than 
one-third  of  the  qualified  electors  according  to  the  number  of  votes 
cast  at  the  last  election.  Contracts  in  excess  of  $25,000  require  an 
election  such  as  for  the  authorization  of  bonds.  (Sec.  5,  par.  a.) 
Bonds  shall  mature  in  not  exceeding  30  years  and  shall  bear  interest 
not  exceeding  6  per  cent  per  annum.     (Sec.  11,  par.  b.) 

Provision  is  made  that  a  landowner,  Avhose  title  is  inchoate,  shall 
tnter  into  contract  with  the  board  that  upon  leceiving  full  title  his 
land  shall  be  subject  to  the  bonds  and  other  debts  of  the  district 
and  that  in  the  meantime  he  shall  pay  his  proportionate  share  of  as- 
sessments.    (Sec.  7.) 

The  installments  upon  the  bonds  are  payable  by  a  district  from  the 
twenty-first  to  the  thirtieth  years  from  the  date  of  issue  of  the  series,  but 
the  district  may,  by  a  majority  vote,  provide  for  an  installment  })eriod 
beginning  at  an  earlier  date.  In  case  the  proceeds  from  the  sale  of 
bonds  are  insufficient  to  provide  for  the  completion  of  the  works  and 
additional  bonds  are  not  voted,  the  board  shall  provide  for  the  com- 
pletion of  the  irrigation  ]dans  by  a  levy  of  taxes  therefor  under  the 
act.  (Sec.  11.)  The  bonds  can  not  be  sold  for  less  than  85  per  cent 
of  the  face  value,  any  attempted  sale  at  a  lesser  value  being  declared 
to  be  absolutely  void.     (Sec.  12.) 

Con-finruitio')!.. — Proceedings  for  confirmation  of  l>onds  in  Arizona 
may  be  initiated  not  only  by  the  board  of  directors  br.t  by  any  elector, 
taxpayer,  or  j)roperty  owner.     (Sec.  28.) 


ARIZONA   STATUTES.  89 

Assessment. — The  i-eal  property  of  the  district  is  declared  to  be  and 
remain  liable  to  taxation  for  payments  on  the  bonds.  Upon  payment 
being  made  for  any  lands  of  the  districl  prior  to  the  maturity  of  any 
bond  issue  of  that  proportion  of  the  l^onded  indebte(hies>  which  the 
acreage  of  such  land  bears  to  the  tbtal  bonded  acreage  of  the  district, 
with  interest  to  the  following  interest-pa\'ing  day,  the  tracts  so  paid 
for  shall  be  jek'ased  fi'om  further-  t:ix  levy  for  the  bonds  then  exist- 
ing, except  as  in  the  act  otherwise  provided  for  tax  levy  in  the  event 
of  default  at  maturity  of  bonds.  (Sec.  13.)  In  case  of  such  default 
by  the  district,  the  lands,  if  any,  released  by  payment  become  taxable 
again  to  render  i)ayments  to  the  bondholders.  (Sec.  16,  par.  e;  see 
conunent,  supra,  p.  58. ) 

Assessments  are  initiated  by  the  board  of  directors,  who  make  an 
annual  estimate  of  the  moneys  required  for  the  next  fiscal  year, 
including  provisions  for  the  tax-sale  j)urchases  of  delincjuent  district 
lands.  Certihed  copy  thereof  is  transmitted  to  the  county  board  or 
boards  with  other  specified  infornuition.  Appropriate  columns  are 
provided  in  the  regular  State  and  county  tax  roll  for  the  entry  of 
district  taxes.  These  taxes  are  required  to  be  levied  at  a  imiform 
amount  per  acre,  and  the  county  board  is  required  to  add  to  tiie 
amount  certified  by  the  district  board  15  per  cent  of  the  gross  amount 
for  contingencies  and  to  fix  the  resulting  proportionate  ''  rate  amount 
per  acre  at  which  ea'ch  acre  of  taxable  lands  of  such  district  shall  be 
taxed.'"  The  custonuiry  functions  are  performed  for  the  district  by 
the  county  assessor  and  the  county  treasurer.  (Sec,  15.)  The  treas- 
urer of  the  county  wherein  the  district  office  is  located  is  also  ex  officio 
district  treasurer.  (Sec.  4.)  Should  the  directors  fail  to  provide 
estimates  and  certificates  as  required,  the  board  of  supervisors  must 
make  the  levy  as  they  may  deem  sufficient.  The  district  and  county 
boards  and  other  officers  mav  be  compelled  to  act  by  mandamus. 
(Sec.  15.) 

More  than  usually  detailed  ])rovision  is  made  foi-  the  creation  of 
separate  funds,  and  it  is  pro\ided  that  the  district  shall  not  pay  out 
of  the  bond  or  interest  fimd  moneys  due  on  any  subsequent  issue  of 
bonds  until  all  matured  bonds  and  interest  of  all  prior  issues  ha^'e 
been  paid  or  a  fund  has  been  created  for  their  payment.  When 
moneys  resulting  from  prepayment  of  assessments  are  available  for 
the  payment  of  a  part  of  the  bonded  indebtedness,  bonds  are  called 
for,  beginning  with  the  highest  numbers. 

District  taxes  become  a  lien,  as  other  State  and  county  taxes,  the 
provisions  of  the  general  revenue  laws  being  applicable  as  to  assess- 
ment, levy,  and  collection,  except  as  modified  to  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  act,  and  as  to  the  sale  of  property  when  delinquent.. 
(Sec.  IT,  par.  a.) 

■  The  district  is  authorized  to  become  the  purchaser  at  delinquent- 
tax  sales  in  the  same  nuinner  as  individuals,  and  the  board  has  the 
])ower  to  provide  funds  for  such  purchases  and  to  dispose  of  the 
property  purchased  for  an  amount  not  less  than  the  amount  paid, 
with  interest  at  6  per  cent.  Upon  petition,  however,  of  five  quali- 
fied electors,  the  question  of  the  resale  of  lands  taken  by  the  district 
on  any  other  terms  shall  bo  submitted  to  the  (jualified  electors.  (Sec. 
17,  par.  b.) 

Prior  water  rights  are  expressly  protected  (sec.  25),  provision 
being  made,  however,  for  distribution  of  available  water  by  the  dis- 


90  HAiS^DBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION"   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

trict  pro  rata,  as  near  as  may  be,  and  for  delivery  of  the  supply 
npon  alternative  days.     (Sec.  24.)  ■•   - 

Eocclus'ion. — Under  the  exclusion  provisions  it  is  stated  that  tlie 
lands  which  become  free  from  the  district  are  not  to  be  liable  for 
district  debts  thereafter  created,  but  for  previously  contracted  lia- 
bilities the  exclusion  does  not  avail.     (Sec.  26,  par.  f.) 

Dissolution. — Petition  for  dissolution  must  be  signed  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  owners  of  land  addressed  to  the  board  of  supervisors, 
setting  forth  that  all  indebtedness  has  been  fully  paid.     (Sec.  27.) 

Activities  under  Federal  law. — Cooperation  with  the  United  States 
is  provided  in  Arizona  by  separate  act  approved  March  8,  1917.  (L. 
1917,  p.  2G.)  This  measure  expressly  provides  for  cooperation  in  the 
construction  of  drainage  works  and  levees,  as  well  as  for  irrigation. 
(Id.  p.  27.) 

It  is  provided  that  the  district  shall  not  be  dissolved,  its  bound- 
aries changed,  or  any  specific  tract  released  which  has  been  bound  for 
the  purpose  of  paying  toward  the  bonded  indebtedness  to  the  United 
States  except  upon  the  written  consent  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior. 

Califoexia,^ 

As  we  already  pointed  out,  California  has  been  the  leader  in 
the  irrigation  district  movement.  The  original  law,  approved  March 
7.  1887  (L.  1887,  29).  was  fathered  by  xA^ssemblyman  Wright,  of 
Stanislaus  County,  and  resulted  from  the  need  for  what  later  be- 
came the  Modesto  irrigation  district.  It  was  the  first  measure  to 
prove  of  practical  utility  in  the  application  of  the  public  corpora- 
tion to  irrigation  in  this  country.  California  is  also  entitled  to  credit 
for  the  leadership  in  the  plan  for  the  confirmation  of  organization 
and  bond  issues  by  proceedings  in  rem  in  the  passage  of  the  act  ap- 
proved March  16,  1889  (L.  1889,  212),  commonly  known  as  the  con- 
firmation act. 

Tlie  present  California  act.  known  as  the  Wright-Bridgford  Act, 
approved  March  31,  1897,  departed  in  a  number  of  important  re- 
spects from  the  original  act:  for  example,  in  placing  greater  safe- 
guards around  the  formation  of  irrigation  districts,  so  that  the  pres- 
ent irrigation  district  law  of  California  is  further  from  the  pioneer 
Wright  Act  than  the  laAvs  of  several  of  the  Western  States.  This 
act  has  in  turn  been  amended  by  later  enactments. 

The  present  law  will  be  conveniently  found  in  Deering's  General 
Laws  of  California  (1915,  act  1726,  pp.  662  to  707,  inclusive,  as 
amended  by  L.  1917.  p.  751  to  769.  and  L.  1917.  p.  915).  Several 
supplementaiy  laws  will  be  referred  to  below.  - 

Organisation. — It  now  requires  a  majority  of  the  holders  of  title, 
or  evidence  of  title,  including  evidence  of  the  rights  of  entrymen 
or  purchasers  of  lands  of  the  United  States  or  of  California,  such 
holders  of  title  or  evidence  of  title  representing  a  majority  in  value 
of  such  lands  according  to  the  equalized  county  assessment  roll  for 
the  last  preceding  year.    The  land  must  be  susceptible  of  irrigation 


'  See  p.  87  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion.  See  also  Addenda,  p.  165,  for 
1919  amendments. 

'  Section  numbers  hereinafter  cited  refer  to  act  1726  of  Deering's  General  Laws  of 
California,   1915,  unless  otherwise  specified. 


CALIFORNIA  STATUTES.  91 

:from  a  common  source  and  by  the  same  system  of  works,  including 
pumping  facilities. 

As  an  alternative,  organization  may  be  proposed  by  written  peti- 
tion of  not  less  than  500  adult  petitioners  residing  in  the  proposed 
district,  corporations,  associations,  or  partnerships  being  qualified 
signers,  the  said  petitions  to  represent  not  less  than  20  per  cent  in 
value  of  the  land  within  the  district  according  to  the  said  equalized 
county  assessment  roll.  The  irrigation  district  need  not  consist  of 
-contiguous  tracts.     (Sec.  1,  as  amended  L.,  1917,  571.) 

The  petition  is  presented  to  the  board  of  supervisors  of  the  county 
wherein  the  greater  portion  of  the  district  shall  lie,  a  copy  thereof 
being  filed  with  the  State  engineer. 

Functions  of  the  State  Engineer. — After  compliance  with  law  as 
to  the  petition,  the  county  board  must  postpone  the  hearing  upon 
the  same  until  the  State  engineer  has  made  a  preliminary  investiga- 
tion of  the  feasibility  of  the  project.  If  the  State  engineer's  report 
shall  be  adverse,  the  hearing  is  continued  and  eventually  dismissed 
unless  three-fourths  of  the  holders  of  title  shall  favorably  petition 
the  board  of  supervisors  in  writing,  or  unless  the  plans  for  irrigation 
are  so  modified  as  to  obtain  the  approval  of  the  State  engineer.  (Sec. 
%  as  amended  L.,  1917,  755.) 

The  State  engineer  shall  have  authority  to  give  information  to  per- 
sons contemplating  the  formation  of  districts,  and  when  the  depart- 
ment of  engineering  deems  it  in  the  public  interest  that  surveys  and 
investigations  of  projects  shall  be  made  at  the  expense  of  the  State,  the 
State  engineer  is  required  to  make  the  same,  and  the  State  w\ater  com- 
mission has  authority  meanwhile  to  withhold  from  appropriation 
any  unappropriated  water  likely  to  be  needed  therefor.  (Sec.  2-a,  as 
added  by  L.,  1917,  755.) 

Hearing. — If  the  project  is  acceptable  or  is  rendered  so  hearing 
upon  the  same  is  held  after  notice  and  the  boundaries  are  established. 
Adjournment  may  be  taken  from  time  to  time.  Areas  already  irri- 
gated and  riparian  lands  may  be  included  in  the  district  if  the  same 
are  found  hy  the  county  board  to  be  benefited,  or  if  the  water  used 
thereon  or  such  water  rights,  in  the  judgment  of  the  board,  should  be 
acquired  for  the  district.     (Sec.  2,  as  amended  L.,  1917,  752.) 

Upon  the  final  hearing,  the  county  board  embodies  in  an  order  its 
conclusions  as  to  the  genuineness  and  sufficiency  of  the  petition  and 
gives  notice  reciting  the  State  engine'er's  report  and  defining  the 
boundaries.  No  evidence  against  the  sufficiency  of  the  petition  is 
receivable  unless  the  board  is  satisfied  that  newly  discovered  evidence 
exists  disproving  the  genuineness  or  sufficiency  thereof.  (Sec.  3,  664.) 
Such  finding  of  the  board  is  conclusive  against  all  the  world  except 
the  State  raising  the  issue  by  suit  commenced  by  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral. Such  suit  on  the  part  of  the  State  must  be  commenced  within 
one  year  after  the  order  of  the  county  board.  (Sec.  4.  665.)  This 
provision  as  to  the  conclusive  character  of  organization  is  in  addition 
to  the  safeguard  procurable  by  confirmation  proceedings  below  out- 
lined. 

Upon  organization  election,  after  statutory  notice,  a  two-thirds 
majority  of  all  votes  cast  is  necessary  for  the  formation  of  the  dis- 
trict.    (Sec.  9,  666.) 

Ofjicers. — The  number  of  divisions,  and  of  directors,  is  five,  with 
the  proviso  that  if  requested  in  the  petition  there  shall  be  but  three 


92  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

divisions.  The  directors  may  be  elected  by  divisions  or  at  large  as 
requested  in  the  petition,  but  shall  in  any  event  reside  in  and  repre- 
sent separate  divisions.  (Sec.  5,  665.)  The  number  of  directors  may, 
however,  be  changed  after  organization  by  a  petition  therefor,  signed 
by  the  majority  of  the  holders  of  title.  (Sec.  28  as  amended  L.,  1917, 
761.)  The  board  of  directors,  assessor,  tax  collector,  and  treasurer 
are  chosen  at  the  organization  election,  no  office  being  combined  with 
any  county  office.  There  is  a  provision  for  the  consolidation  of 
officers  if  requested  in  the  petition  for  organization.     (Sec.  7,  666.) 

In  most  States  the  salaries  have  been  fixed  in  too  ironclad  or  too 
meager  a  fashion.  California  has  attempted  to  adjust  the  matter  and 
gives  the  directors  $4  per  diem  and  10  cents  mileage,  but  provides 
that  in  districts  containing  500,000  acres  or  more  the  directors  in 
lieu  of  per  diem  shall  receive  $150  monthly.  The  board  fixes  the  com- 
pensation of  all  officers  named  in  the  act.  Upon  a  petition  of  50 
freeholders  a  schedule  of  salaries  and  fees,  including  salary  or  per 
diem  of  directors,  if  petition  so  requests,  must  be  presented  at  a  gen- 
eral election.     (Sec.  57,  691.) 

Annual  reports  are  required  of  the  directors  showing  the  fuiancial 
condition,  source  of  receipts,  and  purpose  of  disbursements.  (Sec. 
l4^si  as  added  L.  1917,  756.) 

Elections. — Irrigation  district  elections  are  held  each  odd-num- 
bered year  with  the  provision  that  the  term  of  office  of  officers 
elected  at  or  after  the  general  irrigation-district  election  in  1919 
shall  be  four  years.    ( Sec.  19  as  amended  L.  1917,  759. ) 

It  is  provided  that  no  person  shall  vote  at  a  district  election  unless 
he  possess  the  qualifications  required  of  electors  under  the  general 
election  laws  of  the  State  (Sec.  8,  666),  and  provision  is  made  for 
the  contesting  of  any  election  in  the  superior  court  within  20  days 
after  the  canvass  of  the  vote,  and  a  30-day  appeal  period  is  provided. 
Any  person  owning  property  in  the  district  liable  to  assessment  may 
prosecute  such  contest.     (Sec.  11,  666.) 

Nominations. — Provision  is  made  for  nominations  on  the  part  of 
10  or  more  requesting  that  certain  persons  be  nominated.  Their 
names  then  aj)pear  upon  the  ballot,  although  electors  may  vote  for 
persons  not  nominated.  (Sec.  22-b,  672.)  The  provisions  of  the 
general  election  laws  are  followed  as  nearly  as  practicable.  (Sec.  23, 
672.)  The  offices  of  assessor,  collector  and  treasurer,  although  not 
joined  pursuant  to  petition  for  organization,  may  be  consolidated  in 
the  discretion  of  the  board  prior  to  an  election.     (Sec.  27,  674.) 

Recall. — Elective  officers  may  be  removed  or  recalled  after  six 
months'  tenure.  To  this  end  a  petition  must  be  filed  with  the  secre- 
tary of  the  board  of  directors,  signed  by  registered  voters  in  number 
equal  to  25  per  cent  of  the  highest  vote  cast  for  candidate  for  the  office 
in  question  at  the  last  general  district  election.  The  petition  must  state 
the  grounds  upon  which  the  removal  is  sought  and  the  signatures 
must  be  supported  by  affidavit  of  the  person  who  circulated  it  as  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  signatures.  A  special  election  follows  at 
which  a  majority  of  those  voting  prevails.    (Sec.  28|,  674.) 

Condemnation  and  property. — The  power  of  condemnation  in- 
cludes property  in  canals  and  works  constructed  by  private  owners, 
and  the  right  to  acquire  stock  in  other  corporations,  clomestic  or  for- 
eign, owning  waters,  canals,  etc.,  is  given.  The  board  may  also  ac- 
quire and  operate  property  jointly  with  other  irrigation  districts  or 


CALIFORNIA   STATUTES.  93 

iiiiiratioii  ( orporations  and  nuiv  coiidoiun  llic  i)iivile<>e  of  carrying 
water  through  canals  of  other  corporations.  (Sec.  15  as  anienclecl 
I..  1917,  75G.) 

Pi'ovision  is  made  whereby  the  property  held  in  ti'ust  by  the  dis- 
trict may  be  sold  \yheii  no  longer  necessary  for  district  purposes. 
.(Sec.  29,  676.) 

Where  there  is  a  mutual  water  company  \yithin  an  irrigation  dis- 
trict organized  to  furnish  water  to  si)ecified  lands  within  said  dis- 
trict, the  district  board  of  diiectors  is  authorized  to  contract  for 
the  delivery  of  water  for  such  lands  through  the  mutual  comjianv. 
(Sec.  ir)-b,'as  added  L.  1917.  758.) 

Leases. — The  board  is  authorized  after  due  notice  to  lease  the  sys- 
tem of  canals  and  works  or  any  ])art  thereof  for  the  benefit  of  the 
district  to  the  highest  bidder,  provided  the  lease  shall  not  interfere 
Avith  any  i-ights  that  have  been  established.  (Sec.  15-d  as  amended 
L.  1917."  758.) 

DlsfrWuflon.  of  irafer. — All  waters  distributed  for  irrigation  pur- 
poses must  be  apjiortioned  ratably  to  each  landowner  npon  the  basis 
of  the  ratio  whicli  the  last  assessment  of  each  for  district  purposes 
bears  to  the  whole  sum  assessed  upon  the  district,  with  the  proviso 
that  any  landowner  may  assign  the  right  to  the  whole  or  any  portion 
of  the  waters  so  apportioned  to  him.  (Sec.  18,  670.)  This  ])royision 
has  been  abandoned  in  several  States  where  it  was  formerly  in  force, 
and  the  more  modern  apportionment  in  accordance  with  beneficial 
use  has  been  adopted.     (See  su|)ra.  p.  70.) 

Powers. — Whenever  an  irrigation  district  in  the  development  of 
its  works  has  an  opportunity,  without  increased  expenditure,  to 
ntilize  its  water  for  mechanical  purposes,  the  lioard  may  lease  the 
same.  Notice  must  be  given  and  the  board  must  accept  the  best  bid 
or  reject  all  bids  and  reaclvertise  for  proposals.  The  district  is  pro- 
hibited from  making  a  lease  to  exceed  25  years  for  such  power  privi- 
lege. It  is  pi'ovided  that  if  the  rental  is  not  paid  when  due.  the 
amonnt  thereof  shall  be  doubled,  and  if  not  ])aid  within  90  days 
thereafter,  the  lease  shall  be  forfeited  together  with  all  works  con- 
structed, owned,  used,  or  c(mtrolled  by  the  lessees.  (Sees.  100-105. 
705.  706.)  Similar  provisions  with  a  50-year  limit  of  duration  of  lease 
weie  enacted  in  the  act  approved  March  21,  1893,  General  Laws.  709. 

Tntersfafe  districts. — Districts  are  also  empowered  to  cooperate 
with  irrigation  districts  in  other  States.  (Chap.  591,  L.  1917,  905.) 
The  provisions  foi-  this  purpose  are  ontlined  in  the  general  discus- 
sion aboA  e  (p.  82). 

Debt  llrnitatioH. — The  usual  provision  renders  void  any  debt  at- 
tempted to  be  incurred  beyond  the  express  provisions  of  the  law, 
(Sec.  61,  698.)  The  board  before  the  first  assessment  may  incur 
debts  up  to  $2,000.  or,  if  the  district  has  more  than  4,000  acres,  to 
one-half  as  many  dollars  as  there  are  acres  of  land  in  the  district, 
and  for  such  purpose  warrants  of  the  district  may  be  issued  at  not 
more  than  7  per  cent  per  annum  interest.     (Sec.  61.  693.) 

Xo  purchase  or  lease  of  waters,  water  rights,  or  any  other  propert}' 
for  any  price  oi-  consideration  in  excess  of  $10,000  in  any  district 
whose  area  does  not  exceed  50,000  acres,  nor  in  excess  of  $50,000  in 
any  district  whose  area  is  over  50,000  acres  and  not  over  200,(X)0 ' 

1  There  is  an  evident  error  liere  in  the  statute  as  to  provision  for  the  classification  of 
districts. 


94  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION"   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

acres,  nor  in  excess  of  100,000  acres  shall  be  binding  on  the  district^ 
nor  shall  the  consideration  or  any  part  thereof  be  paid  or  rendered 
nntil  either  petition  by  a  majority  of  the  holders  representing  a 
major  part  of  the  value  of  the  land  has  been  filed  with  the  board^ 
and  an  order  of  the  board  shall  confirm  the  transaction,  Or  a  petition 
has  been  presented  to  the  board  signed  hj  not  less  than  500  peti- 
tioners, who  must  be  electors  or  holders  of  title  to  land  or  possessory 
rights  in  the  district,  said  petition  to  bear  the  signature  of  the 
owners  of  not  less  than  20  per  cent  in  value  of  the  land.  Such  peti- 
tion, however,  is  not  required  where  the  purchase  or  lease  is  specified 
in  the  plans  approved  by  the  irrigation  district  bond  commission 
and  adopted  by  the  board  of  directors  as  provided  in  section  30  of 
the  act  or  where  it  is  among  the  purposes  specified  for  any  bond 
issue  authorized  bv  vote  of  the  electors.  (Sec.  15-a  as  added  bv  L. 
191T,  7.57.) 

Bonds — Purpose  and  authority. — Authority  to  issue  bonds  is  given 
at  the  outset  of  the  district  enterprise  and  also  when  the  funds  result- 
ing from  prior  bond  sales  have  been  exhausted.  (Sec.  30,  as  amended 
L.  1917,  761.)  The  board  may  acquire  canals  or  works  by  purchase 
or  condemnation  or  may  exchange  bonds  for  same  or  for  capital  stock 
in  irrigation  companies  owning  such  canals  or  works  \\\)OW  such  term.s 
and  conditions  as  the  board  may  deem  best.  (Sec.  61-b,  as  added, 
L.  1917,  769.) 

Following  the  making  of  plans  and  estimates  of  amount  of  monev 
necessary  to  be  laised,  the  boaid  is  required  to  submit  a  copy  of  the 
engineer's  report  to  a  commission  consisting  of  the  attorney  general, 
the  State  engineer,  and  the  superintendent  of  banks  for  certification 
as  legal  investments  for  banks,  insurance  companies,  trust  funds,  and 
State  school  funds  in  the  manner  and  under  the  terms  which  we  have 
outlined  in  the  general  discussion.  (Supra,  p.  43.)  The  commission 
is  required  to  examine  the  report,  make  additional  surveys  and  exami- 
nations if  deemed  proper,  and  report  to  the  board  of  directors  with 
statement  of  conclusions,  particularly  as  to  water  supply,  soil,  adapt- 
ability to  irrigation,  the  probable  amount  of  water  necessary,  need 
of  drainage,  cost,  and  the  like,  together  with  an  opinion  as  to  the  ad- 
visability of  proceeding  with  the  bond  issue  (sees.  30-a  and  30-b.  a? 
added,  L.  1917,  762) ,  or  as  to  the  necessity  for  changes  of  plans. 

Same — Resolution  hy  the  hoard. — The  board  of  directors,  after  re- 
ceiving the  commission's  report,  if  it  determine  by  resolution  that 
the  proposed  plan  is  satisfactory,  shall  make  an  order  determining 
the  amount  of  the  bonds  to  be  issued.  The  law  further  provides  that 
if  the  district  shall  issue  bonds  to  carry  out  any  plans  approved  by 
said  irrigation  district  bond  commission,  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  the 
district  to  make  any  material  change  in  its  plans  without  the  consent 
of  the  commission.     (Sec.  30-b,  as  amended,  L.  1917,  762.) 

Saone — Petition  and  election. — Thereafter  the  board,  when  ]Deti- 
tioned  by  a  majority  of  the  holders  of  title  or  possessory  rights,  rep- 
resenting a  majority  in  value  of  the  said  lands,  or  when  petitioned  by 
not  less  than  500  petitioners  who  are  electors  or  holders  of  land,  in- 
cluding the  owners  of  not  less  than  20  per  cent  in  value  of  the  land, 
shall  immediately  call  a  special  election  upon  the  issuance  of  the 
bonds.     (Sec.  30-c,  as  added,  L.  1917.  762.)    If  a  majority  of  the  votes 


CALIFORNIA  STATUTES.  95 

cast  favor  the  bond  issue,  the  same  is  deemed  authorized.     (Sec.  30-c, 
as  added,  L.  1917,  7G3.) 

Same — TevnvH. — The  bonds  run  foi-  40  years,  the  ])ayment  upon  the 
principal  beginning  21  years  after  the  date  and  running  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  ]^eriod.  but  the  hiw  provides  that  the  bonds  may  be 
made  payable  at  the  end  of  a  shorter  period  and  the  number  of  series 
may  be  made  less  than  '20  if  such  propositions  are  presented  and 
favorably  acted  uj^ou  at  tbe  bond  eU'ction.  The  interest  rate  is  not 
to  exceed  6  per  cent.  (Sec.  31,  678.)  Said  bonds  and  the  interest 
thereon  shall  be  paid  from  revenue  derived  from  an  annual  assess- 
ment upon  the  land  within  the  district,  and  all  land  within  the  dis- 
trict shall  be  and  remain  liable  to  be  assessed  therefor.  (Sec.  33,  as 
amended,  L.  1917,  764.) 

Same — Proceedings  in  conflnnation. — Proceedings  for  the  confirma- 
tion of  bonds  are  optional  after  the  issue  of  bonds  or  the  levy  of  any 
assessment,  the  purpose  being  to  determine  the  validity  of  the  bond 
or  the  levy  of  such  assessments.  The  action  is  a  proceeding  in  rem. 
(Sec-  68,  696.) 

If  the  board  fail  to  bring  the  proceeding,  any  district  assessment 
payer  may  do  so,  the  directors  becoming  parties  defendant.  (Sec. 
69,  696.) 

Where  the  board  has  exchanged  bonds  or  agreed  to  do  so,  the  court, 
in  its  confirmation  proceedings,  shall  determine  whether  the  bonds 
when  delivered  under  the  terms  of  the  contract  shall  constitute  valid 
obligations  of  said  district  as  against  all  persons.     (Sec.  61-c,  694.) 

Same — Legif^lative  cojifirmation. — Provision  has  been  made  for  the 
legalization  of  bonds,  issued  and  to  be  issued,  sold  by  irrigation  dis- 
tricts. In  all  cases  subsequent  to  Januar}'  1,  1910,  where  the  directors 
by  resolution  submitted  the  question  whether  or  not  bonds  should  be 
issued,  and  at  th?  election  so  b.eld  four-fifths  of  the  electors  voting 
A'oted  in  favor  of  the  issue,  the  povrer  of  the  vdistrict  to  issue  the  bonds 
is  declared  legalized,  ratified,  and  confirmed  and  valid,  and  tlie  bonds 
are  declared  to  be  It  gal  and  valid  obligations  against  the  irrigation 
district  whether  sold  before  or  after  the  passage  of  the  act.  (Act 
approved  May  2a,  1915.  L.  1915,  837:  Deering's  General  Laws,  707.) 
Moreover,  numerous  sj^ecial  acts  by  way  of  legalization  of  bonds  of 
individual  districts  have  been  passed  by  the  legislature. 

Same — Miscellaneovs  provi^ionf<. — ^A  special  provision  with  an  elec- 
tion is  provided  for  the  reduction  of  the  bonded  indebtedness  when 
the  bonds  authorized  exceed  the  amount  needed  in  order  to  carry  out- 
the  plans.  If  there  are  outstanding  bonds,  the  assent  of  the  bond- 
holders may  be  obtained  to  the  reduction  of  the  bonded  indebtedness 
in  the  same  fashion  as  is  prescribed  for  the  assent  of  the  bondholders 
to  the  exclusion  proceedings.  If  such  assent  is  not  obtained,  no  reduc- 
tion of  the  l)onded  indebtedness  can  be  affected.  (Sec.  99^,  705.) 
The  requirement  that  the  assent  of  the  holders  of  bonds  not  retired 
be  obtained  would  seem  unduly  to  hamper  the  procedure.  It  would 
appear  that  their  assent  is  not  necessary  to  a  step  which  will  enhance 
their  security  rather  than  otherwise. 

In  case  there  be  bonds  voted,  but  not  sold,  provision  is  nuide  that 
thev  be  destroyed  after  an  election,  which  must  carrv  hy  two-thirds 
majority.     (Sees.  106  to  108,  706.) 

Special  provision  has  also  been  made  for  the  holder  of  bonds  and 
interest  coupons  to  surrender  the  same  and  have  them  canceled  and 


96  HANDBOOK-OP   IRRTGATTOlSr    DISTRICT  LAWS. 

discharged  after  notice  of  hearing  and  consideration  by  the  superior 
court,  the  proceedings  being  in  rem.  (Approved  May  1.  1911,  Deer- 
ing's  General  Laws.  721.) 

District  const riu-tioii  irorh. — The  construction  provisions  are  simi- 
lar to  those  in  other  States,  the  district  retaining  the  right  to  construct 
under  its  own  supei'vision  if  notice  of  award  of  bids  does  not  result 
satisfactorily.  (Sec.  53,  689.)  During  the  construction  work  the 
State  engineer  shall  have  access  to  all  plans  and  shall  investigate  same 
and  make  such  reports  to  the  board  of  directors  as  lie  shall  deem  to  be 
in  the  public  interest  as  regards  districts  whose  bond  issues  have  been 
certified  bv  the  State  irrigation  district  bond  conunission.  (Sec.  W?f-'A 
as  added,  L.  101 T,  7()8.) 

The  State  engineer  receives  copies  of  all  information  and  reports, 
including  financial  statements,  and  must  report  thereon  with  such 
i-econimendations  as  he  may  deem  jjroper.  He  may  initiate  examina- 
tion into  the  all'airs  of  any  district  or  call  upon  the  authorities  to 
furnish  desired  information  and  i-eports.     (Sec.  5-U,  600.) 

Where  the  disti'ict  crosses  any  railroad  the.  owners  of  the  railroad 
and  the  district  unite  in  forming  the  intersections  and  ci'ossings.  and 
if  they  can  not  agree,  the  district  may  condemn  the  right  to  cross. 
The  right  of  way  is  given  to  districts  over  any  lands  of  the  State, 
and  the  waters  and  water  rights  belonging  to  the  State  are  dedicated 
to  the  uses  of  the  disti'ict.     (Sec.  .")('),  601.) 

Constnoction  iritJiout  use  of  credit. — In  case  the  money  raised  by 
the  bond  sales  is  insufficient  or  the  bonds  be  unavailable  for  the  com- 
])letion  of  the  plan  adopted  and  additional  bonds  are  not  voted,  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  board  to  i^rovide  for  the  completion  of  the  plan  by 
the  levy  of  assessments.  First,  however,  an  estimate  of  the  amount 
required  must  be  made  and  the  question  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the 
electors  upon  the  special  assessment,  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast 
being  necessary.      (Sec.  S-t,  680.) 

CoopcratMn  with  the  Ihvited  states. — Two  acts  for  cooperation 
with  the  United  States-  under  the  reclamation  law  were  passed  in 
lOlT.  That  approved  May  5,  1917  (chap.  160,  243),  contains  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  recited  unrler  the  foregoing  general  dis- 
cussion for  ( ooperation  with  the  United  States.  It  should  be  noted 
that  as  regards  districts  which  cooperate  with  the  United  States  the 
criterion  for  assessment  is  expressly  the  benefit  derived  to  each  tract. 
The  statute  thus  departs  from  the  ad  valorem  standard  which  pre- 
vails in  the  case  of  all  other  ii'rigation  districts  in  California.  In 
the  ascertainment  of  the  benefits  derived  by  the  re.spective  tracts,  the 
provisions  of  the  contract  betAveen  the  United  States  and  the  district, 
the  Federal  laws  applicable  and  the  notices  and  regulations  in  pur- 
suance thereof  nmst  be  taken  into  consideration,  and  if  the  contract 
calls  for  the  assumption  by  the  district  of  indebtedness  to  the  United 
States  theretofore  existing,  there  must  be  taken  into  account  the  pro- 
visions of  existing  contracts  carrying  such  indebtedness  and  the 
amounts  of  such  liens  as  may  be  released  in  pursuance  of  the  contract 
between  the  United  States  and  the  district.  The  provisions  of  the 
general  irrigation  district  law  are  made  applicable,  except  as  ex- 
pressly or  by  necessary  implication  modified. 

The  district  operation  not  related  to  cooperation  with  the  Ignited 
States  are  not  affected  by  the  act.     (L.  1917,  chap.  160,  243.) 

An  additional  act  was  passed  whereby  not  only  irrigation  districts 
but  reclamation  districts  are  authorized  to  enter  into  a  contract  with 


CALTFORXIA   STATUTES.  97 

the  United  States  for  drainage  or  irrigation  of  their  lands  or  to 
[)revent  ovei-flow  under  tlie  provision  of  the  reclamation  extension  act 
of  Aiig-iist  13,  1914.  It  is  i)rovided  in  snch  case  tliat  the  hoard  shall 
provide  by  resolution  foi-  the  pa_\iuents  of  the  aiuounts  to  Itecouie 
(hie  under  the  contract  Avith  the  United  States  by  assessment  upon 
the  lands  benefited,  the  same  to  l)e  collected  by  the  county  tax  col- 
lector or  by  anv  other  officer  authorized  by  law  to  collect  assessments 
Avithin  the"  district.     (L.  1917,  781.) 

The  rights  of  way.  water  conduits,  reservoirs,  and  similar  property 
of  an  irrigation  district  are  expressly  exempted  from  taxation  for 
State,  county,  and  municipal  ])urp()ses.     (Sec.  00;  (595.) 

The  proN'isions  for  the  assessmeut  of  State  lands  have  already  been 
recited  in  the  geiieial  discussion  under  that  licad.     (Su|)ra.  ]).  (H.) 

AVlien  jnopei'ty  is  acquiied  by  the  district  under  any  lease  or  con- 
tract on  the  installment  basis  the  consideration  shall  be  paid  out  of 
funds  derived  froui  tlie  levying  of  annual  assessments  or  from  the  col- 
lection of  rates,  tolls,  and  charges.  The  same  option  is  given  as  to 
organization,  operatiou.  maintenance,  and  improvement  expendi- 
tures.    (Sec.  55,  ()90. ) 

Assessment. — It  is  the  duty  of  the  assessor  of  the  district  to  assess 
all  real  estate  in  the  district  at  its  full  cash  value,  to  prepare  an 
assessment  book  showing  the  persons,  lands,  including  city  and  town 
Jots,  cash  values,  and  other  data.  Improvements,  including  trees 
and  growing  crops,  as  well  as  buildings  on  lands  or  town  lots,  are 
exempt  from  taxation.  (Sec.  85  as  amended,  L.  1917,  764.)  In  the 
event  that  any  land  which  should  be  taxed  for  district  purposes  has 
lieen  omitted  from  the  assessment  roll,  special  provision  for  the 
insertion  of  the  same  and  the  equalization  of  the  assessment  is 
made.  (Sec.  39-e  as  added  by  L.  1917,  767.)  Property  which 
escaped  payment  for  any  previous  year  is  assessable  and  falls  under 
the  same  provisions  and  penalties  otherwise  applicable.  (Sec.  35  as 
amended,  L.  1917,  764.) 

Eqiudizatiori. — It  is  the  duty  of  the  board  of  directors  after 
notice  to  meet  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  objections,  if  any,  to 
valuations  and  to  equalize  assessments.     (Sees.  37  and  38,  682.) 

Levy. — After  equalization  the  board  must  levy  an  assessment 
upon  the  district  lands  in  an  amount  sufficient  to  raise  the  interest 
and  principal  to  become  due  upon  district  bonds  and  all  sums  to  be- 
come due  from  the  district  before  the  next  annual  assessment  on 
account  of  rentals,  charges  for  lands  and  other  property  acquired 
under  lease  or  contract,  and  all  unpaid  Avarrants  and  other  obliga- 
tions reduced  to  judgment:  also  such  an  amount,  not  exceeding 
2  per  cent  of  the  aggregate  value  of  the  lands,  as  the  board  may  deem 
needed  for  general  expenses.  (Sec.  39  as  amended.  L.  1917,  765.) 
The  secretary  must  compute  the  respective  sums  to  be  paid  as  an 
assessment  upon  the  propertv  enumerated  in  the  assessment  books. 
(Sec.  39-a  as  added,  L.  1917.  765.) 

Special  proA'ision  is  made  authorizing  the  board,  after  a  petition 
by  the  majority  of  the  assessment  payers,  to  make  all  assessments 
except  special  assessments  payable  semiannually  instead  of  annually. 
(Act  approA-ed  Mar.  19, 1909,415:  Deering's  Genei'al  Laws.  716.) 

RecmiTse — ^Yhere  ofpoial  'neglect. — If  the  board  of  directors  neglect 
or  refuse  to  cause  the  assessment  and  le\ies  t(^  be  made,  the  duties 

100047—20 7 


98  HANDBOOK   OF   lEKIGATIOX   DISTKICT  LAWS. 

must  be  performed  by  the  county  assessor  and  the  county  board  of 
supervisors.  In  such  case  the  legal  effect  shall  be  identical  with  that 
resulting  from  action  by  the  district  officers,  the  district  attorney  of 
the  county  bringinp-  suit  for  the  cost  thereof.  In  case  the  collector 
or  treasurer  of  an  irrigation  district  neglect  to  perform  his  duties  the 
tax  collector  and  the  treasurer  of  the  county  must  respectively  per- 
form such  duties,  paying  the  funds  to  the  county  treasurer,  who  shall 
disburse  the  same  to  the  proper  persons  and  shall  not  pay  any  part 
to  the  treasurer  of  the  district  until  satisfied  that  the  valid  obliga- 
tions for  which  assessment  Avas  levied  have  been  paid.  (Sec.  39-b, 
as  added  L.  1917,  7G5.) 

The  district  attorney  of  each  county  in  which  the  office  of  any  irri- 
gation district  is  located,  must  ascertain  whether  the  duties  relating 
to  the  levying  and  collection  of  assessments  have  been  performed, 
and  if  he  learn  of  neglect  he  must  notify  the  county  supervisors  or 
other  county  official  required  to  act.  Unless  such  count}'  officials  pro- 
ceed with  the  performance  of  their  duty  the  district  attorney  is  re- 
quired to  compel  action  by  court  procedure. 

In  case  complaint  shall  be  made  to  the  attorney  general  of  the 
State  that  the  district  attorney  of  any  county  has  not  performed  any 
duty  devolving  upon  him.  or  that  he  is  not  acting  diligently,  the 
attorney  general  shall  make  an  investigation  and  take  such  measures 
as  may  be  necessary,  if  an}',  to  enforce  the  perfonnance  of  the  duties 
relating  to  levying  and  collection  of  assessments.  (Sec.  39-c  as 
added  by  L.  1917,  766.)  In  case  there  has  been  a  neglect  to  perform 
any  such  duty  within  the  time  required  and  such  duty  is  subsequenth^ 
performed,  the  time  within  which  all  duties  consequent  upon  the  per- 
formance thereof  must  be  performed  is  extended  proportionately, 
together  with  the  times  when  assessments  become  delinquent.  (Sec. 
39-d  as  added  L.  1917,  767.) 

Delinqueut-tax  sales. — Xotice  of  date  of  delinquency  is  required  to 
be  given  and  thereafter,  besides  the  customary  machinery  of  de- 
linquent-tax sale,  the  alternative  remedy  of  suit  againt  the  delinquent 
is  specified  by  the  statute.  (Sec.  ll-a,  685.)  Prior  to  the  delinquent- 
tax  sale,  following  publication  of  the  delinquent  list,  the  owner  may 
specify  what  portions  of  property,  if  less  than  the  whole,  he  desires 
sold,  or  the  collector  may  designate  the  same,  the  sale  being  made  to 
him  who  will  take  the  least  quantity  of  the  land  or  the  smallest  por- 
tion of  an}'  undivided  interest  against  which  the  assessment  may  be 
delinquent.  If  there  be  no  purchaser  the  property  is  struck  off  to 
the  irrigation  district,  and  the  collector  is  credited  with  the  amount. 
Property  sold  to  the  district  may  be  conveyed  following  a  resolution 
of  the  board  fixing  the  price  at  not  less  than  the  reasonable  market 
value.     (Sep.  44,  686.) 

Bede?7iption. — The  redemption  of  the  projDerty  may  take  place 
within  five  years  from  the  date  of  purchase.  (Sec.  47,  687),  The 
5-year  period  is  not,  however,  operative  as  a  bar  to  the  dissolution  of 
any  iri'igation  district.     (Sec.  47^,  687.) 

Provision  is  made  by  supplemental  act  for  the  former  owner  of 
land  sold  for  delinquent  assessments  and  purchased  by  the  irrigation 
district  to  redeem  such  property  by  paying  interest  at  the  rate  of 
2  per  cent  per  month  and  all  assessments  and  other  charges  and 
penalties.  (Act  approved  Mar.  10,  1891,  L.  1891,  53;  also  Deering's 
General  Laws,  708.) 


CALiroEXIA   STATUTES.  90 

Speokd  assessments  and  emergency  a[)propriation.s. — The  board 
may.  Avhenever  deemed  ndvisahle.  call  a  special  election  for  the  raising 
of  money  for  any  disti'ict  purposes  at  wliich  a  two-thirds  majority 
of  the  votes  cast  is  needed  to  authorize  such  special  assessment.  It  is 
provided,  however,  that  in  case  of  an  unexpected  emergency  inter- 
rupting the  flow  of  water  the  amount  of  indel)tedness  incuned  in 
repair,  not  to  exceed  $4(),00(),  may,  in  addition  to  the  assessments 
herein  provided  for.  be  levied  by  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  by  at 
least  four-fifths  of  the  members  of  the  board  without  the  suljmission 
of  the  ([uestion  to  an  election.      (Sec.  59.  as  amended  L.  1U17.  7(58.) 

The  rate  of  special  assessments  levied  is  ascertained  by  deducting 
15  per  cent  for  anticipated  delinquencies  from  the  aggregate  assessed 
value  of  the  property  as  it  appears  on  the  assessment  roll  for  the 
current  yeai-,  and  then  dividing  the  sum  voted  by  the  remainder  of 
such  aggregate  assessed  value.  The  collections  are  made  at  the  same 
time  and  in  the  same  manner  as  other  assessments  provided  for  by 
act.     (Sec.  00,  693.) 

Tolls  and  eharyes. — The  board  of  directors  is  authorized  to  make 
tolls  and  charges  for  the  use  of  water  payable  in  advance,  and  in  case 
the  same  are  unpaid  thev  mav  be  added  to  the  annual  assessment 
ensuing.     ( Sec.  39-f.  as  added  L.  1917,  768.) 

Funds. — The  funds  are  divided  into  the  bond  fund,  construction 
fund,  and  general  fund  (sec,  67,  695),  with  authority  to  transfer  to 
the  general  fund  moneys  remaining  unexpended  after  provision  for 
the  purpose  has  been  made.      ( Sec.  67-a,  as  added  L.  1917,  769.) 

Kxclvsion  proceedings. — Petition  for  the  exclusion  of  lands  follows 
somewhat  the  usual  course  (sec.  74,  697),  and  Avhen  the  matter  is 
heard  the  board  is  required  to  exclude  from  the  district  lands  which 
can  not  be  irrigated  from  or  which  are  not  susceptible  to  iri-igation 
from  a  common  source  or  by  the  same  system  of  works,  with  the  pro- 
viso that  no  land  irrigated  by  pumping  from  underground  sources 
shall  be  entitled  to  exclusion  on  that  account,  if  it  slmll  be  shoAvn 
that  such  land  is  or  will  be  substantially  benefited  by  sul)irrigation 
from  the  district  works  or  by  drainage  provided  or  required  by  law 
to  be  provided  by  the  district.  But  no  owner  shall  be  required  to  pay 
assessments  other  than  for  interest  and  principal  on  the  bonds  on  any 
land  which  when  the  district  was  organized  was  irrigated  by  means  of 
water  pumped  from  an  underground  source  and  which  has  been  con- 
tinued each  j^'ear  to  be  irrigated  exclusively  by  such  means.  (Sec. 
78.  699.) 

If  there  be  outstanding  bonds  the  holders  thereof  may  assent  to  the 
exclusion,  and  in  such  case  the  lands  so  excluded  shall  be  released  from 
the  liens  of  such  outstanding  lionds.     (Sec.  79,  699.) 

Bondholders  protected .—N othing  in  the  act,  however,  is  to  operate 
to  release  any  land  excluded  from  any  obligation  to  pay  or  discharge 
any  lien  of  valid  outstanding  bonds  or  other  indebtedness  of  the  dis- 
trict existing  when  the  petition  for  exclusion  was  filed,  but  said  land 
shall  be  held  subject  to  all  outstanding  obligations  then  existing  as 
though  the  petition  had  not  been  made  or  the  land  excluded,  and  all 
remedies  to  compel  payment  remain  as  before,  except  that  lands  so 
excluded  shall  not  be  chargeable  for  any  obligation  incurred  after  the 
filing  with  the  board  of  the  petition,  and,  further,  that  the  provisions 
shall  not  applv  to  outstanding  bonds  Avhose  holders  have  assented  to 
the  exclusion. "   (Sec.  84,  700.)^ 


100  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION    DISTRICT  LAWS. 

Annexation. — Petition  for  inclusion  may  be  made  by  holders  rep- 
resenting one-half  or  more  of  a  contiguons  body  of  land  adjacent  to 
the  boundary  of  the  district.  (Sec.  86^  701.)  The  public  lands  of  the 
United  States  adjoining  the  boundaries  of  a  district  may  be  included 
by  order  of  the  board  of  directors  without  a  petition  therefor.  If 
the  inclusion  would  be  injurious  to  the  lands  of  the  district,  either 
impairing  the  Avater  right  or  requiring  greater  expense,  the  board  may 
prescribe  conditions  by  providing  for  a  priority  of  water  right  or 
requiring  the  payment  of  an  additional  charge,  as  may  seem  just.  "  If 
such  inclusion  is  upon  petition  of  property  owners,  all  such  property 
owners  must  sign  and  acknowledge  an  agreement  with  the  district, 
specifying  such  conditions  and  describing  the  land  so  to  be  included." 
(Sec.  00,  702.) 

About  the  usual  i)rovision  is  made  for  an  election  in  case  tliere  is 
opposition  to  the  inclusion,  a  majority  of  the  votes  being  sufficient. 
(Sees.  91  to  97,  703  and  704.) 

Dissolution. — The  dissolution  proceedings  are  more  elaborate  in 
California  than  in  most  of  the  States.  Where  contract  has  been  made 
with  the  United  States,  no  proceedings  shall  be  entertained  by  any 
court  until  the  written  assent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has  been 
given  to  the  dissolution.  (Act  Fel).  10.  1903,  L.  1903,  3,  as  amended; 
Deering's  (ireneral  Laws.  711.) 

The  proceedings  may  be  initiated  under  alternative  plans: 

(a)  The  petition  for  dissolution  must  be  signed  by  a  majority  of 
the  holders  of  title,  or  evidence  thereof,  to  district  real  property  rep- 
resenting a  majority  in  value.  The  amount  of  all  indebtedness  must 
be  set  forth,  together  with  the  assets,  including  irrigation  system  and 
water  rights.     (Id.,  711.) 

{h)  If.  however,  an  irrigation  district  has  no  indebtedness  not 
barred  by  the  statute  of  limitations  and  no  assets  and  has  ceased  to  l)e 
a  going  concern  and  is  without  an  irrigation  system  carrying  water 
to  the  residents  of  the  district,  the  petition  need  only  be  signed  by 
two-thirds  of  the  qualified  electoi-s  and  by  the  holders  of  title,  or  evi- 
dence thereof,  representing  at  least  50  per  cent  of  the  acreage  and  not 
less  than  50  per  cent  in  value  of  all  lands.  In  such  case  the  plan  of 
dissolution  need  only  show  that  there  is  neither  indebtedness  nor 
assets.  As  regards  the  proposal  for  the  liquidation  of  indebtedness, 
no  assent  on  the  part  of  the  holders  of  any  evidence  of  indebtedness 
barred  by  any  statute  of  limitations  need  be  obtained.     (Id.,  712.) 

BoimJ holders  protected. — The  ])etition  is  filed  with  the  board  of 
directors  who  call  an  election,  ])rovided.  liowever,  the  assent  of  all 
known  holders  of  valid  indel)tedness  against  the  district  not  barred 
by  the  statute  shall  be  obtained,  if  any  there  be,  and  that  provision 
shall  be  made  in  the  plan  presented  for  the  payment  of  creditors 
who  do  not  assent.     (Id.,  713.) 

The  electi(m  must  be  carried  by  two-thirds  of  the  votes  cast,  where- 
upon the  board  files  in  the  superior  court  a  petition  to  determine  the 
validity  of  the  proceedings  and  of  the  proposed  dissolution  plan. 
This  is  in  the  nature  of  a  proceeding  in  rem  and  jurisdiction  is  ob- 
tained by  pul)lication.  Eights  of  all  parties  are  determined  by  the 
cori't  subject  to  the  right  of  appeal  within  30  days  after  the  entry 
of  judgment.  Court  determines  the  regularity  and  the  legality  of 
the  proc^^edings.     (Id..  713,  714.) 


COLORADO   STATUTES.  101 

A  corporation  iiiay  lie  oi\i»'aniz('d  I'or  the  ])urpose  of  ac«iiiiriii<i;  the 
assets  of  the  district,  iiu  ludiiig  the  irrigation  system,  franchises,  and 
water  rights.     (Id.,  714,  715.) 

The  conrt  lias  the  pf)wor  to  make  the  order--  jiecessarv  for  the 
discharge  of  indebtedness  and  distribution  of  property.     (Id.,  71").) 

The  amounts  of  any  assessment  and  the  amounts  for  AA'hich  de- 
linquent sales  have  been  made  are  declared  to  be  liens  on  the  lands 
affected.  (Act  a])prove(l  Feb.  10.  1903;  L.  1903.  3;  Deei-ing's  Gon- 
ei'al  Laws,  711.) 

Disfj'ictfi  of  mo'i'e  thav  500.000  acra^. — An  act  providing  for  dis- 
tricts having  an  area  of  more  than  500,000  acres  is  the  result  of 
special  problems  encountered  l)y  the  Imperial  irrigation  district  in 
its  struggle  with  the  Colorado  Eiver.  Autliorit\'  is  granted  to  such 
districts,  of  which  this  district  is  the  sole  representative  in  the  State, 
to  expend  such  sums  as  the  board  finds  necessary  for  the  i:)rotection 
of  the  canal  S3'stem  and  its  lands  from  damage  by  flood  and  the  over- 
flow of  rivers,  and  to  contril)ute  funds  to  be  expended  by  or  jointly 
with  the  United  States  or  other  governments  or  persons  benefitted 
by  the  same  protective  works.  The  board  is  given  the  special  author- 
ity to  do  all  necessary  things  to  insure  such  irrigation  system  from 
such  damage  without  first  receiving  a  petition  of  the  landowners 
for  holding  an  election.  The  board  may  borrow  for  the  purposes 
named  at  a  rate  not  exceeding  7  per  cent  the  amount  of  any  author- 
ized bond  issue  not  yet  sold,  but  when  the  bonds  are  sold  the  amount 
borrowed  must  be  repaid.  Added  powers  are  given  to  borrovr  for 
flood  protection  purposes  in  any  one  year  not  to  exceed  $200,000  at 
a  rate  not  greater  than  7  i:)er  cent.  (Act  ajjproved  Jan.  -21.  19ir).  L. 
1915,  1;  Deering's  General  Laws,  722.) 

"  California  irrigation  acty — Another  act.  was  api^i'oved  June  -I-, 
1915.  known  as  the  California  irriaation  act  (L.  1915,  1173).  which 
with  the  amendatory  act  of  May  28,  1917  (L.  1917,  1068).  provide, 
among  other  things,  for  cooperation  between  the  State  of  California 
and  the  United  States.  This  creates  an  irrigation  board,  provides  for 
tiie  formation  of  irrigation  districts  and  conservation  districts  and 
authorizes  irrigation  districts  to  reorganize  nnder  the  act.  The 
board  also  has  authority  to  consolidate  into  single  districts  known 
as  conservation  districts,  previously  existing  irrigation,  reclamation, 
and  drainage  districts  and  other  ])olitical  subdivisions  of  the  State 
organized  to  promote  reclamation.  The  powers  are  largely  vested 
in  the  commission,  and  the  public  corporations  created  differ  in  so 
many  particulars  from  the  ordinary  type  of  irrigation  district,  which 
is  the  subject  matter  of  the  present  work,  that  we  do  not  deem 
it  proper,  within  our  necessary  limitations,  to  give  a  resume  of  the 
j)rovisions  of  this  law.  It  is,  however,  a  very  interesting  enactment 
and  valuable  as  a  model  and  will  be  found  in  chapter  646  of  the  laws 
of  1917,  page  1068.    The  act  was  approved  May  28.  1917. 

Colorado.^ 

The  Colorado  law  will  be  found  in  Mills's  Annotated  Statutes, 
1912,  sees.  3964  to  4025,  inclusive,  as  amended  by  the  Session  laws 
of  1913,  384:  1915,  298  to  306,  and  314  to  318,  and  1917,  290  to  315. 


^  See  p.  87  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion.     See  also  Addenda,  p.  166.  for 
1919  amendments. 


102  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

There  are  also  several  supplementary  acts  of  importance,  the  cita- 
tions to  which  will  be  found  below. 

Petition  for  organization. — Organization  is  initiated  by  petition 
to  the  board  of  county  conmiissioners  b}'  a  majority  of  the  owners  of 
land  including  homestead  entrymen  within  any  district,  whether 
they  be  residents  or  nonresidents,  representing  the  ownership  of  a 
majority  of  the  area  of  the  district.  Organization  purposes  include 
drainage  construction  necessary  to  maintain  the  irrigability  of  the 
district  lands.  The  usual  clauses  have  been  inserted  as  to  coopera- 
tion with  the  United  States,  drainage  purposes  being  expressly  men- 
tioned in  this  connection  also.  (Sec.  3964.  as  amended,  L.  1917,  ch. 
83,  sec.  1  and  sec.  3965.) 

Action,  hy  cauntij  hoard. — Upon  the  hearing  after  due  notice  by 
the  county  board,  if  the  petition  be  dismissed,  the  grounds  for  dis- 
missal must  be  stated  in  writing,  and  if  not  well-founded  a  writ  of 
mandamus  issues  to  compel  action  by  the  board.     (Sec.  3966.) 

Organization  a.nd  other  elections. — Upon  the  initial  election  a 
majority  of  the  legal  electors  is  sufficient  for  organization.  (Sec. 
3968.)  Before  the  district,  however,  is  authorized  to  proceed  in  the 
matter  of  a  bond  election  or  the  purchase  of  property,  the  plans 
therefor  must  be  submitted  to  the  State  engineer  and  a  decision  ren- 
dered by  him  upon  the  feasibility  of  the  project.  (Sec.  3967,  as 
amendecl,  L.  1917,  ch.  83,  sec.  2.)  At  all  elections  under  the  act 
every  owner  or  entryman  of  agricultural  or  horticultural  land  with- 
in tile  district  over  21  years  of  age.  who  is  a  citizen  or  who  has 
declared  his  intention  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  and 
is  a  resident  of  Colorado,  who  shall  have  paid  real  property  taxes 
during  the  calendar  year  preceding  such  election,  is  entitled  to  vote. 
(Sec.  3967,  as  amended.  L.  1917.  ch.  83,  sec.  2.) 

Provision  is  made  that  judicial  notice  shall  be  taken  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  district,  and  protecting  any  district  the  organization  of 
which  has  not  been  questioned  in  quo  warranto  proceedings  for  a 
year  after  the  order  of  establishment.     (Sec.  3977.) 

Pouters  of  the  hoard. — The  directors  are  granted  about  the  cus- 
tomary powers.  All  waters  are  distributed  pro  rata  except  that, 
during  the  existence  of  any  contract  between  any  district  and  the 
United  States,  distribution"  may  be  made  according  to  the  terms  of 
such  contract.  There  is  added  a  proviso  that  the  act  shall  not  be 
construed  to  relinquish  to  the  United  States  any  of  the  sovereign 
rights  of  Colorado  to  the  waters  wathin  its  borders  or  the  exclusive 
authority  of  the  State  over  said  waters  and  the  diversion,  appropria- 
tion and  use  thereof,  nor  to  modify  the  methods  of  appropriation 
thereof.     (Sec.  3971,  as  amended.  L."  1917.  ch.  83,  sec.  3.) 

Indehtedness — limitations. — The  board  of  directors  is  denied  the 
power  to  incur  any  debt  or  liability  in  excess  of  the  provisions  of  the 
act  in  the  usual  terms,  with  the  additional  proviso  that  the  expendi- 
tures may  be  increased  in  emergency  cases  if  the  same  be  authorized 
in  writing  by  a  number  of  the  district  electors  equal  to  one-half  the 
number  who  voted  at  the  last  annual  district  election.  (Sec.  3991,  as 
amended,  L.  1915,  ch.  108,  sec.  1.) 

Bonds— furf  OSes  and  authorization. — Bonds  in  Colorado  are  an- 
thorized  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  legal  electors  who  are  freeholders 
and  taxpayers  or  entrymen.  Bonds  may  be  for  the  payment  of  the 
first  year's  interest  as  well  as  for  construction  and  acquisition  pur- 


COLORADO   STATUTES.  103 

poses.  They  run  for  20  years  and  installments  of  principal  are 
payable  from  the  eleventh  to  the  twentieth  years.  But  bj'  a  majority 
vote  bonds  nuiy  be  issued  niaturino-  in  less  than  20  years  and  pro- 
vision is  made  for  a  supplemeutary  issue  to  be  voted  at  a  special  elec- 
tion if  the  proceeds  of  the  prior  bond  issue  have  been  exhausted. 
There  is  a  priority  of  lien  for  taxes  in  accordance  with  the  priority 
of  the  bond  issue  or  contract  with  the  United  States.  (Sec.  3978  as 
amended  L.  1917,  ch.  83,  sec.  C.)  Bonds  can  not  be  sold  for  less  than 
95  per  cent  of  the  par  value  and  interest  shall  not  exceed  6  per  cent 
per  annum,    (Sec,  3979.) 

Same — how  'pald. — Bonds,  principal  and  interest,  and  obligations 
to  the  United  States  shall  be  paid  by  revenue  from  an  annual  assess- 
ment upon  the  real  property  of  the  district  which  shall  be  and  re- 
main liable  to  be  assessed  for  such  payments.  Public  lands  of  tlie 
United  States  are  subject  to  taxation  to  the  extent  provided  bv  the 
Smith  Act  of  August  11,  191G.  (Sec.  3980  as  amended  L.  1917,  ch. 
83,  sec.  7.  and  see  abo\e  p.  25  for  the  Smith  Act.) 

Same — co))flr/)U'tw/i.— The  confirmation  proceedings  relate  not  only 
to  the  steps  to  authorize  a  bond  issue  and  contract  with  the  United 
States,  but  also  for  the  determination  of  the  validity  of  the  contract 
with  the  United  States.  (Sec.  4013  as  amended  L.  1917,  ch.  83,  sec. 
16.)     The  proceedings  in  other  respects  follow  the  usual  course. 

Sams — refunding  hands. — The  act  a])proved  March  6,  1915,  which 
provides  in  some  detail  for  the  refunding  of  district  bonds,  is  dis- 
cussed in  the  preceding  genei-al  text,  at  page  58. 

Constrvction  vwrh. — The  provision  for  the  letting  of  construction 
"work  is  about  as  usual  and  allows  for  construction  to  be  undertaken 
by  the  board.     (Sec.  3986  as  amended  L.  1917,  ch.  83,  sec.  12.) 

Revenue — assessments. — The  amounts  of  money  as  determined  by 
the  board  of  directors  annually  required  to  meet  the  maintenance, 
operating,  and  current  expenses,  also  any  deficiency  in  the  payment 
of  expenses  theretofore  incurred,  also  to  meet  any  contract  with  the 
the  United  States,  shall  be  certified  to  the  board  of  county  commis- 
sioners. While  the  respective  amounts  payable  by  tracts  in  a  district 
formed  on  a  Federal  project  are  required  to  be  fixed  in  accordance 
with  the  Federal  laws  and  notices,  orders,  and  regulations  issued 
thereunder  and  in  compliance  with  any  contracts  made  by  the  United 
States  with  any  owners  and  in  compliance  with  the  contracts  between 
the  districts  and  the  United  States,  it  is  expressly  provided  that  the 
obligation  of  the  district  contracting  with  the  United  States  shall  be 
deemed  a  debt  of  the  entire  district.  No  expenditure  to  be  paid  out 
of  such  fund  shall  exceed  in  any  one  year  the  amounts  fixed  for  such 
expenses  in  the  ainiual  appropriation  i-esolution  except  as  in  the  act 
later  provided.     (Sec.  3981  as  amended  L.  1917,  ch.  83,  sec.  8.) 

The  county  assessor  must  make  and  enter  the  assessment  of  all  real 
estate  including  public  lands  subject  to  assessment  under  tlie  Smith 
Act,  exclusive  of  improvements,  within  an  irrigation  district  in  whole 
or  in  part  lying  in  such  county  and  make  returns  of  the  total  amount 
of  such  assessment  to  the  county  board  of  the  county  in  which  the 
office  of  the  district  is  located.  All  lands  within  the  district  fen- 
purposes  of  taxation  must  be  valued  at  the  same  rate  per  acre. 

Control  over  State  lands. — ^The  Colorado  provisions  for  assessment 
of  State  lands  have  been  considered  in  the  general  discussions.  (See 
p.  60.) 


104  HANDBOOK    OF   IRRIGATIOX   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

Belief  from  assessment. — No  land  shall  be  taxed  for  irrigation 
district  purposes  which  by  reason  of  location  or  broken,  uneven  sur- 
face, or  unfavorable  character  or  soil  is  unsuitable  for  irrigation 
and  cultivation  or  which  from  any  natural  cause  is  not  capable  of 
irrigation  and  cultivation  except  at  a  financial  loss.  If  the  amount 
of  water  available  shall  be  wholly  insufficient  for  the  successful 
raising  of  crops  on  the  entire  district  acreage  susceptible  of  irriga- 
tion therefrom,  the  fact  may  be  alleged,  and.  if  proven,  shall  entitle 
the  owner  of  lands  that  have  never  been  cultivated  or  irrigated  to 
relief  by  way  of  exclusion  and  relief  from  assessments. 

This  is  accomplished  by  written  petition  to  the  board  of  directors 
showing  the  facts  above  outlined  and  also  that  the  petitioner  did 
not  participate  in  the  organization  of  the  district.  Any  court  of 
competent  jurisdiction  may  then  review  the  action  of  the  board  of 
directors  on  the  petition  as  well  as  all  official  action  in  including  such 
lands  in  the  district  and  taxing  them  for  district  purposes,  but 
any  owner  who  has  cultivated  and  irrigated  any  part  of  his  land 
has  to  that  extent  waived  and  relinquished  his  right  to  relief  under 
this  section. 

Where,  however,  contract  has  been  made  with  the  United  State?^ 
the  written  consent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  necessary  be- 
fore the  boundaries  may  be  changed  or  lands  exempted  from  taxa- 
tion under  this  section.     (Sec.  3982  as  amended,  L.  1917, ch.  83, sec.  9. ) 

The  section  above  outlined  has  a  direct  tendency  to  undermine  the 
security  of  bondholders,  and  is  therefore  damaging.  The  issues  have 
been  discussed  in  the  general  discussion.     (See  j).  52.) 

The  owner  applying  for  the  relief  described  must  pay  all  taxes 
other  than  irrigation  district  taxes  and  interest,  penalties,  and  fees 
to  the  county  treasurer.     (L.  1915,  ch.  106,  sec.  2.) 

Levy. — The  county  commissioners  immediately  upon  receipt  of 
the  returns  of  the  total  assessment  of  the  district  and  the  receipt  of 
certificates  of  the  directors  certifying  the  respective  total  amounts 
of  money  required  to  be  raised  must  fix  the  rates  of  levy  necessary 
to  provide  the  respective  amounts  of  monej^  and  to  certify  the  same  to 
the  county  commissioners  of  each  county  in  which  any  part  of  the 
district  may  lie.  The  rate  of  levy  on  the  assessed  valuation  shall 
be  increased  15  per  cent  to  cover  delinquencies.  The  county  com- 
missioners when  making  the  levy  for  county  purposes  must  levy 
also  upon  all  district  realty  within  their  respective  counties  for 
district  purposes.  (Sec.  3983  as  amended  L.  1917,  ch.  83,  sec.  10.) 
The  county  treasurer  in  which  the  office  of  the  district  is  located  is 
ex  officio  treasurer  of  the  district.  (Sec.  3984  as  amended  L.  1917, 
ch.  83,  sec.  11.) 

Delinquent  fax  sales. — The  revenue  laws  of  the  State  for  assess- 
ment levy  and  collection  of  realty  taxes  for  county  purposes,  except 
as  modified  in  the  district  act,  including  penalties  and  forfeiture 
for  delinquency,  are  made  applicable  for  the  district  taxes.  In  case 
of  sale  where  no  bids  are  made  the  property  shall  be  struck  off  to 
the  irrigation  district,  and  no  taxes  assessed  against  any  such  land 
shall  be  payable  until  the  same  shall  have  been  derived  by  the  dis- 
trict from  the  sale  or  redemption  thereof.  The  district  in  proper 
cases  is  entitled  to  a  tax  deed  subject  to  the  equities  of  a  private 
purchaser,  including  right  of  redemption.    No  action  for  possession 


COLORADO  STATUTES.  105 

01-  to  quiet  title  to  laiul  sold  for  taxes  shall  lie  against  the  holder 
of  the  tax  deed  unless  brought  within  five  years  after  the  delivery 
of  the  deed  by  the  treasurer.  (Sec.  3985  as  amended  L.  1915,  eh.  109, 
sec.  1.) 

WaiTants. — The  provisions  relative  to  ^varrants  are  of  the  custo- 
mary type.  There  is  no  provision  whereby  interest  on  the  war- 
rants must  stop,  unless  the  warrant  is  again  presentfid  for  payment 
after  having  been  presented  and  unpaid  for  want  of  funds.  (Sec. 
3987.) 

/ss-ue  of  bonds  to  retire  i&arrants. — When  any  irrigation  district 
shall  have  issued  warrants  for  any  purpose  for  which  bonds  might 
have  been  issued,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  district  to  issue  bonds  to 
]-etire  such  warrants  after  an  election  of  the  qualified  voters.  These 
bonds  may  be  sold  for  not  less  than  95  per  cent  of  the  face;  value  and 
the  proceeds  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  warrants  and  accrued 
interest  or  the  bonds  may  be  exchanged  for  the  warrants  at  not  less 
than  the  face  value  of  the  bonds.  'Such  bonds  shall  be  subject  to  all 
bonds  previously  issued  by  the  district.     (L.  1913,  ch.  102,  385.) 

Tolls  aiul  charges. — The  usual  provision  is  made  for  rates  of  tolls 
and  charges  in  lieu  of  assessments  for  various  })urposes  and  for  the 
completion  of  the  plans  by  assessment  in  case  the  proceeds  of  the 
bonds  are  insufficient.     (Sec.  3988.) 

Changes  in  houndaries. — The  annexation  and  exclusion  proceed- 
ings require  little  by  way  of  supplement  to  the  general  discussion. 
Petitions  for  the  inclusion  of  lands  requires  the  signatures  of  the 
holders  of  all  lands  to  be  admitted.  (Sec.  3995.)  Changes  of 
boundaries  of  districts  require  the  assent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Inte- 
rior where  contract  has  been  made  with  the'  United  States.  (Sec. 
4008  as  amended,  L.  1917,  ch.  83,  sec.  15.) 

Dissolution. — The  dissolution  proceedings  are  contained  in  the 
special  act  of  April  12,  1915.  (L.  1915,  ch.  107.  307  to  313.)  Dis- 
solution may  be  begun  by  a  petition  addressed  to  the  board  of  direc- 
tors on  the  part  of  a  majoi'ity  of  the  legally  qualified  electors  of  the 
district  or  by  the  holders  of  the  legal  title  to  a  majority  of  the  acre- 
age or  by  75  per  cent  or  more  in  amount  of  the  holders  of  the  bonds 
issued  by  the  district.  The  petition  shall  set  forth  the  amount  of  the 
outstanding  bonds  and  other  indebtedness  so  far  as  known  to  the 
petitioners;  also  the  assets  of  the  district,  including  the  irrigation 
system  and  any  proposition  which  has  been  made  by  the  holders  of 
the  indebtedness  to  settle  and  any  plan  proposed  to  carry  the  pay- 
ment into  execution.     (L.  1915,  ch.  107.  sec.  2.) 

Same — Consent  of  creditors. — An  election  shall  be  called  upon  the 
question  of  dissolution  and  liquidation  of  the  debts  and  disti'ibution 
of  the  assets  of  the  district,  the  notice  of  election  tn  set  forth  the  pro- 
posed plan,  but  no  such  election  shall  be  called  until  the  assent  of 
all  holders  of  valid  indebtedness  against  the  district  known  to  the 
directors  shall  be  obtained  or  until  provision  shall  be  made  for  the 
ultimate  payment  or  liquidation  of  the  claims  of  nonassenting  hold- 
ers. The  assent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  where  the  United 
States  has  contracted  with  the  district  is  a  prerequisite  to  action. 
(L.  1917.  ch.  83,  sec.  21,  amending  L.  1915,  sec.  3.  308.) 

The  majority  of  the  votes  cast  nuist  favor  the  dissolution  or  the 
proceedings  fail.     (L.  1915,  ch.  107,  sec.  4.) 


106  HANDBOOK   OF   IREIGATION   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

Same — Judicial  con-flrmation. — If  the  election  carry,  the;  board  must 
file  a  petition  in  the  district  court  to  determine  the  validity  of  the 
proceedings  and  of  the  proposed  plan,  the  confirmatory  proceeding- 
being  one  in  rem,  and  the  court  having  ample  powers  to  ascertain 
the  validity  of  the  indebtedness  and  of  the  procedure.  (Id.,  sec.  4.) 
From  the  judgment  of  the  district  court  writ  of  error  may  be  sued 
out  within  30  clays.  (Id.,  sec  5.)  If  the  proceedings  are  not  brought 
by  the  board,  any  qualified  elector  may  bring  such  an  action.  (Id., 
sec  6.) 

Same — Corporation  irhay  huy  system. — A  corporation  may  be  or- 
ganized under  the  general  laws  of  the  State  for  the  purpose  of  ac- 
quiring the  assets  of  the  irrigation  district,  including  the  irrigation 
system,  the  water  rights,  and  all  the  property  of  tlire  district.  (Id., 
sec.  7.) 

Satne — Continued  assessment  or  apportiowment  of  deht. — The  court 
in  its  decree  shall  make  the  necessary  orders  to  carry  the  plan  for 
the  liquidation  of  the  district's  debts  into  effect,  including  the  right 
to  apportion  any  indebtedness  found  due  and  to  declare  said  por- 
tions liens  upon  the  various  parcels  of  land  within  the  district.  The 
decree  may  require  a  sale  or  exchange  of  the  district's  assets  so  as  to 
provide  adequate  security  for  the  ultimate  payment  or  complete 
liquidation  of  all  the  debts  of  the  district.  The  court  may  also  pro- 
vide by  decree  for  the  ultimate  payment  of  all  or  any  part  of  the 
debts  of  the  district  by  directing  a  continuance  of  the  levy  and  as- 
sessment of  taxes  upon  district  lands  in  the  same  manner  as  under 
the  irrigation  district  law.     (Id.,  sec.  8.) 

The  court  shall  also  have  power  in  such  manner  as  it  may  deem 
just  under  the  circumstances  to  apportion  the  bonded  debt  of  the 
district  among  the  varioiis  tracts  of  land,  each  irrigable  acre,  how- 
ever, being  liable  for  the  same  amount,  and  to  provide  for  the  release 
and  extinguishment  of  the  liens  securing  the  bonds  of  the  district  or 
any  part  thereof  against  all  or  any  of  said  land  upon  the  payment 
of  all  or  a  pro  rata  amount  of  the  bonded  debt  hj  the  landowner 
either  in  casli  or  the  surrender  of  an  equivalent  amount  of  the 
district  bonds. 

Same— extinguishment  of  lien. — As  regards  any  tract  upon  which 
the  lien  is  thus  released,  the  treasurer  shall  issue  a  certificate  evidenc- 
ing the  extinguishment,  which  when  recorded  shall  be  conclusive 
evidence  that  the  land  has  been  released  from  the  lien  securing  the 
bonds.  (Id.,  sec.  0.)  This  part  of  the  plan  we  believe  to  be  subject 
to  criticism,  and  for  which  the  general  text  under  the  head  "  Dissolu- 
tion "  may  be  consulted.     (Supra,  p.  86.) 

Same — ultimate  liquidation  required. — It  is  provided,  however, 
that  "  no  plan  of  liquidation  shall  be  approved  by  the  court  whicli 
does  not  provide  for  the  ultimate  payment  or  liquidation  of  all  the 
indebtedness  of  the  district  and  adequate  security  for  the  holders 
thereof."  (Id.,  sec.  10.)  In  case  the  court  shall  decree  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  lien  against  any  portion  of  the  lands  or  property  of  the 
district,  the  decree  shall  provide  for  the  foreclosure  of  such  liens 
upon  the  failure  to  make  any  payments,  the  conditions  of  foreclosure 
to  be  Avithin  the  discretion  of  the  court.  (Id.,  sec.  11.)  After  the 
discharge  of  all  obligations  the  balance  of  the  money  is  distributed 
to  the  assessment  payers.     (Id.,  sec.  12.) 


IDAHO   STATUTES.  107 

I>'t><tr!cfs  free  from  Jeht. — Irriiiatioii  districls  ^vhicli  are  free  from 
debt  wvAy  also  be  dissolved  under  this  act,  in  which  case  the  pro- 
ceedings  for  dissolution  need  not  l)e  passed  upon  by  the  court,  but 
after  the  holdino-  of  an  election  a  certificate  shall  be  filed  with  the 
county  clerk  sliowino-  the  steps  effectuating?  the  dissolution.  (Id., 
sec.  13.) 

Sale  of  inif/ation  fiysfem. — Provision  by  separate  enactment  and 
irres])ective  of  dissolution  proceedinsxs  is  made  for  the  sale  of  the 
irrigation  system,  water  riolits.  :uid  other  property  of  irrigation 
districts.  (Act  of  Apr.  IT.  1017,  cli.  80,  821-326.)  The  plan  is 
initiated  by  resolution  of  the  board  of  directors  submitting  the  (ques- 
tion for  vote  at  a  special  or  general  election,  the  notice  of  which  shall 
contain  the  proposed  terms  and  conditions  and  the  plan  to  be  carried 
out.  (Id.,  sec.  1.)  If  the  election  carry,  the  board  may  file  a  peti- 
tion in  the  district  court  to  determine  the  validity  of  the  proceedings. 
(Id.,  sec.  3.) 

Same — power  of  the  court. — At  the  hearing  the  court  must  deter- 
mine the  amount  of  the  indebtedness,  the  validity  of  any  portion 
thereof,  and  may  adjust  and  determine  the  rights  and  liabilities  of 
all  parties  and  decree  the  execution  of  the  proposed  plan.  Writ  of 
erior  to  the  supreme  court  lies  within  90  days.  If  the  board  fails 
to  act,  any  qualified  elector  may  bring  the  proceeding.  (Id.,  sees. 
3  and  4.)  The  sale  of  j^ropei'ty  may  be  made  to  any  person,  to  a 
corpoi'ation  organized  under  the  Colorado  laws,  or  to  the  United 
States,  but  no  sale  of  water  rights  shall  impair  or  relinquish  any  of 
the  sovereign  rights  of  the  State  to  the  waters  of  the  State  or  the 
authority  to  control  and  regulate  the  diversion,  use,  and  distribution 
thereof.  (Id.,  sec.  5.)  No  plan  for  the  sale  of  the  entire  property 
of  irrigation  districts  shall  be  approved  by  the  court  which  does  not 
provide  for  the  ultimate  payment  or  liquidation  of  the  debts  of  the 
district  and  give  adequate  security  for  the  holders  thereof  as  well 
as  protect  the  landowners  of  the  district.     (Id.,  sec.  6.) 

Same — rights  of  creditors. — Any  construction  of  the  act  to  abridge 
the  powers  of  district  officers  or  the  county  board  or  the  revenue 
officers  of  the  State  in  the  assessment,  levy,  or  collection  of  district 
taxes,  or  otherwise,  is  expressly  precluded,  as  is  also  any  construc- 
tion which  would  either  impair  or  enlarge  the  rights  of  creditors. 

Idaho.^ 

The  Idaho  law  will  be  found  in  the  Kevised  Codes  of  Idaho,  1908, 
sections  2372  to  2443,  inclusive,  as  amended  by  laws  1911,  pages  102, 
194,  414,  435,  461,  587;  laws  1913,  pages  453,  541;  laws  1915,  pages 
118,  134,  203,  304,  391;  laws  1917,  pages  313,  478,  493,  497. 

Petition  for  organization. — For  organization  purposes  a  petition 
is  presented  to  the  county  commissioners  signed  by  50  or  a  majority 
of  the  holders  of  title,  or  evidence  of  title,  including  entrymen  on 
Federal  or  State  land,  representing  one-fourth  of  the  total  lands  of 
the  district  which  will  be  assessable.  Such  lands  must  be  susceptible 
of  irrigation  from  a  common  source  and  by  the  same  system  of 
works.  Organization  may  proceed  under  the  statute  when  it  is  the 
desire  of  the  petitioners  to  provide  for  the  irrigation  of  the  district 

1  See  p.  87  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion.  See  also  Addenda,  p.  167,  for 
1919  amendments. 


108  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

lands  "  or  when  for  other  reasons  they  desire  to  organize  the  pro- 
posed territory  into  one  district."  The  petition  must  state  whether 
it  is  pi'oposed  to  j^urchase  irrigation  works  already  in  operation  or  to 
construct  new  works.     (Sees.  2372  and  2373.) 

The  statute  requires  a  very  full  showing  as  to  the  engineering  re- 
quirements in  maps  and  plans  attached  to  the  petition  and  the 
notice  of  hearing  must  outline  the  proposal  as  to  the  plans,  whether 
a  new  canal  system  or  the  purchase  of  an  existing  system  is  proposed. 

Functions  of  State  engineer. — The  petition  and  accompanying 
])apers  must  be  filed  with  the  State  engineer  for  four  weeks,  ancl  his 
report  is  submitted  to  the  county  board  at  the  hearing  upon  the 
])etition.  If  the  report  be  against  the  organization,  the  county  board 
must  re.fuse  further  to  consider  the  same  unless  it  be  requested  in 
writing  by  three-fourths  of  the  landowners.  The  petitioners  may 
amend  the  plan  "  to  meet  the  approval  of  the  State  engineer  or  as 
they^  may  find  advisable."  After  the  plans  have  either  been  ap- 
proved by  the  State  engineer  or  the  written  request  on  the  part  of 
the  required  number  has  been  received,  the  board  fixes  the  bounda- 
ries.    (Sec.  2374.) 

Elections  and  electorate. — An  election  is  held  at  which  a  voter 
must  have  the  qualifications  required  under  the  general  election 
laws  of  the  State.  The  statute  adds  the  requirement  that  he  must 
be  a  resident  of  the  proposed  district  and  a  holder  of  title  of  land 
in  the  district.  This  provision,  hoAvever,  has  been  declared  uncon- 
stitutional by  the  courts.  (Sec.  2375  as  amended  L.  1911,  461,  and 
L.  1915,  136.  See  the  outline  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  this  sec- 
tion, supra,  p.  19.) 

A  two-thirds  majority  of  the  votes  cast  is  required  for  organiza- 
tion. 

Elections  are  conducted  as  nearly  as  practicable  in  accordance  with 
the  general  election  laws  of  the  State,  the  provisions  as  to  the  form 
and  distribution  of  ballots  and  registration  being  excepted.  Judges 
of  elections  are  required  to  propound  to  every  elector  and  have  sub- 
scribed an  elector's  oath  which  includes  the  unconstitutional  require- 
ments.    (Sec.  2376  as  amended  L.  1911,  461;  L.  1915,  134.) 

Same — registration. — The  secretary  of  the  district  acts  as  regis- 
trar, performing  so  far  as  applicable  the  duties  of  registrar  under 
the  general-election  laws.  He  receives  applications  for  registration 
at  any  time,  and  only  those  persons  whose  names  appear  upon  the  poll 
list  of  the  last  preceding  annual  election,  together  with  those  subse- 
quentlv  registered  seven  days  prior  to  any  election,  are  allowed  to 
vote.  (Sec.  2379  as  amended  L.  1913,  453.)  Comment  upon  the  un- 
constitutionality of  this  section  will  be  found  in  the  main  discus- 
sion.    (Supra,  p.  19.) 

The  provisions  of  law  as  regards  election  details  are  more  complete 
in  the  Idaho  irrigation  district  law  than  in  others.  (Sees.  2380  to 
2384  as  aiuended  L.  1915,  205.) 

District  officers. — llie  number  of  directors  and  divisions  is  three, 
but  with  a  provision  for  the  changing  of  the  number  with  an  option 
betAveen  three,  five,  and  seven  directors  upon  an  election  called  after 
a  petition  signed  by  50  per  cent  of  the  number  of  electors  voting  at 
the  last  annual  election  and  representing  25  per  cent  of  the  area  of 
lands  of  the  district.  If  the  election  results  in  a  change  a  redivision 
of  the  district  is  necessary  in  order  to  correspond.      (Sec.  2378-a 


IDAHO    STATUTES.  109 

as  added  by  L.  1915,  210.)  The  directors  chosen  at  the  organization 
election  appoint  a  secretary  and  treasurer.  (Sec.  2377  as  amended 
L.  1915.  306.) 

Provision  is  made  for  an  election  upon  a  schedule  of  salaries  and 
fees  after  a  petition  bv  50  or  a  majority  of  the  freeholders  witliin 
the  district.     (Sec.  2389.) 

Selection  iindet'  Carey  Act. — In  addition  to  the  customary  powers 
and  duties  of  directors,  there  is  a  ])rovision  that  in  case  there  are 
lands  in  condition  to  be  selected  undi'i-  the  C'arey  Act  Avithin  the  dis- 
trict bouiulai'ies.  the  board  of  directors  is  authorized  to  file  with  the 
State  board  of  land  commissioners  a  request  for  the  selection  of  lands 
to  be  leclaimed.  accomi)anying  the  recjuest  w'ith  a  proposal  to  con- 
struct the  necessary  irric:ation  works.  The  proposal  is  prepared  in 
accordance  Avith  the  rules  of  the  State  board  and  the  reiinlations  of 
the  Department  of  the  Interior  and  accompanied  by  certihcate  of  the 
State  engineer  that  application  for  ap})ropriation  permit  has  been 
filed,  together  with  the  State  engineer's  report  thereon.  (Sec.  2386 
as  amended,  L.  1915,  308.) 

iScttlciiienf  under  the  Carei/  Act. — Upon  the  withdrawal  of  the 
land  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior  the  district  and  the  State 
board  may  enter  into  contnxct  for  construction  of  irrigation  works, 
Avhich  contract  shall  include  the  price  and  the  terms  of  disposition 
of  land  to  settlers.  The  statute  then  includes  provisions  for  appli- 
cation for  entr}'  by  qualified  persons,  imposes  requirements  as  to 
proof  of  cidtivation  and  reclamation  and  for  patents.  The  appor- 
tionment of  the  cost  of  the  irrigation  works  made  by  the  board  of 
directors  and  all  assessments  and  taxes  levied  against  the  land  by 
the  district,  where  the  Carey  Act  proyisions  are  in  effect,  are  a  first 
and  prior  lien  upon  the  water  right  and  land  under  the  Idaho  statute, 
the  "said  lien  to  be  in  all  respects  prior  to  any  and  all  other  liens 
created  or  attempted  to  be  created  by  the  owner  and  holder  of  said 
land,  and  said  land  shall  be  sold  as  other  lands  in  the  district  are  sold 
for  like  assessments,  and  the  sale  of  the  lands  shall  work  an  assign- 
ment of  the  contract  to  the  purchaser."  (Sees.  2386-a  to  2386-e,  as 
added  L.  1911,196,468.) 

The  State  laws  with  reference  to  the  Carey  Act  lands  and  requests 
for  selection  and  the  like  and  the  procedure  are  made  to  cover  appli- 
cations of  an  irrigation  district  where  the  same  are  not  particularly 
provided  for  in  the  see  tions  last  above  cited.  (Sec.  2386- f,  as  added 
by  L.  1911.  199.) 

Excess  liahUities. — The  usual  provision  against  the  incurring  of 
any  debt  or  liability  in  excess  of  the  express  provisions  of  the  act  is 
supplemented  with  a  declaration  that  for  any  of  the  purposes  under 
the  act  the  board  before  the  collection  of  the  first  assessment  may  in- 
cur a  debt  not  exceeding  $2,000  and  may  cause  warrants  bearing  not 
exceeding  7  per  cent  to  issue  therefor.     (Sec.  2392.) 

Arimrr/t  reports  avcl  statements. — Annual  report  of  the  condition 
of  the  construction  work  and  the  success  of  the  district  plans  and  as 
to  the  availability  of  sufficient  funds  is  required  to  be  made  to  the 
State  engineer,  W'ho  shall  make  such  suggestions  and  recommenda- 
tions to  the  board  as  he  deems  advisable.  (Sec.  2393.)  The  board 
must  also  publish  an  annual  financial  statement  for  local  publication. 
(Sec.  2394.)     In  addition,  the  board  of  county  commissioners  is  ex- 


110  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

pressly  given  access  to   the  district  books,  records,  and  vouchers. 
(Sec.  2395.) 

General  plan  of  ofcrations. — After  organization  the  directors  are 
required  to  forniuhite  a  general  plan  including  plans  and  estimates 
and  submit  the  same  to  the  State  engineer,  who  shall  report  to  the 
board.  The  directors  shall  then  determine  the  amount  of  money 
lequired,  and  call  a  special  election  as  to  bonds  or  contract  with  the 
United  States,  as  the  case  may  be.  The  usual  notice  of  electioi^^^j*? 
required  to  state  that  the  State  engineer's  report  and  maps  and  esti- 
mates are  open  to  public  inspection  by  the  people.  The  election 
requires  a  two-thirds  majority  in  order  to  pass.  (Sec.  2396,  as 
amended  L.  1915,,  310.) 

Bonds. — The  bonds  if  issued  run  for  20  years,  the  payment  period 
running  from  the  eleventh  to  the  twentieth  years,  inclusive.  The 
interest  shall  not  exceed  7  per  cent.  In  case  the  money  raised  by 
the  sale  of  bonds  be  insufficient  for  the  completion  of  the  works 
under  the  plan  adopted  and  additional  bonds  be  not  voted,  the 
plan  by  levy  of  assessment  therefor.  After  the  indebtedness  has 
been  authorized  by  the  election  the  board  may  enter  into  contract 
with  the  United  States  and  issue  bonds  or  not  as  called  for  bv  the 
contract.     (Sec.  2397,  as  amended  L.  1915,  311.) 

If  the  plan  or  Avorks  have  been  examined  by  the  Federal  Reclama- 
tion Service,  which  has  declared  that  the  same  are  practicable  and 
tluit  there  is  good  security  for  the  payment  of  principal  and  interest, 
such  fact  is  stated  in  the  bonds.  If  the  sale  of  bonds  has  been  con-  * 
firmed  and  approved  by  the  courts,  this  should  appear  on  the  bonds 
under  the  seal  of  court.     (L.  1915,  295.) 

Contract  with  U nited  States. — The  taxing  powers  of  the  district 
must  be  invoked  to  repay  the  United  States  for  moneys  expended  and 
secured  by  district  contract.  The  works  constructed  under  such  con- 
tract shall  be  controlled  and  administered  by  the  district  under  the 
Federal  laws  with  the  proviso  that  the  board  may  enter  into  contract 
with  the  United  States  to  operate  and  maintain  the  works  and  nuiy 
lev}^  assessments  for  tlie  cost  of  such  operation  and  uiaintenance  and 
collect  the  same  as  otherwise  provided  in  the  district  law. 

If  the  district  act  as  fiscal  agent  of  the  United  States,  it  is  expressly 
given  the  right  to  refuse  the  delivery  of  water  to  persons  who  have 
not  made  the  payments  and  com])lied  Avith  the  acts  of  Congress;,  the 
public  notices  and  rules  and  regulations  issued  thereunder. 

The  district  is  also  authorized  to  contract  for  the  completion  of 
works  partially  completed  and  may  redeem  outstanding  bonds  with 
funds  advanced  by  the  United  States  and  contract  to  repay  the  ex- 
penditures. Xo  such  contract  Avith  the  United  States  shall  be  binding 
unless  ratified  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  district  electors.  Tem- 
porary contract,  hoAvever,  for  not  to  exceed  one  year  for  securing  a 
Avater  supply  from  the  United  States  may  be  made  by  the  board  and 
payment  therefor  provided  by  tolls  or  an  assessment  as  part  of  the 
operation  and  maintenance  costs.  (Sees.  2398,  as  amended,  L.  1915, 
304,  and  see  L.  1917,  p.  298.) 

Assessments. — In  Idaho  assessments  are  made  on  the  basis  of  bene- 
fits, and  there  is  no  provision  for  a  reapportionment  at  any  future 
date  or  for  a  readjustment.  Whenever  the  electors  have  authorized" 
an  issue  of  bonds,  the  board  nuist  examine  each  tract  and  determine 
the  benefits  Avhich  Avill  accrue  thereto  from  the  construction  or  pur- 


IDAHO    STATUTES.  Ill 

chase  of  the  woi-ks.  and  tlio  cost  shall  be  distributed  <)\  ei-  the  tracts  in 
proportion  to  such  benefits,  "and  the  amount  so  ap))ortioned  or  dis- 
tributed to  each  of  said  tracts  or  sul)divisions  shall  bo  and  remain  the 
basis  for  hxin<>-  the  annual  assessments  levied  against  such  tracts  or 
subdivisions  in  carrj^ing  out  the  purposes  of  this  chapter." 

The  board  shall  then  make  a  list  of  apportionuients  Avith  the 
amount  and  rate  i)cr  acre  or  may  embody  the  information  u))on  a 
map.  The  list  or  uiap  umst  be  filed  in  the  office  of  the  State  engineer 
by  way  of  copy  and  "  whenever  thei-eafter  any  assessment  is  made 
either  in  lieu  of  bonds  or  any  annual  assessment  for  raising  the  inter- 
est on  bonds  or  any  portion  of  the  })rincipal,  it  shall  be  s]:)read  upon 
the  lands  in  the  same  i)roi)ortion  as  the  assessment  of  benefits,  and  the 
whole  amount  of  the  assessment  of  benefits  shall  equal  the  amount  of 
bonds  or  other  obligations  authorized  at  the  election  last  above  men- 
tioned."'    (8ec.  23!)0,  as  amended.  L.  1911,  199,  dui)licated,  472.) 

Notice  shall  be  given  to  the  OAvners  of  the  meeting  to  be  held  for 
the  assessment  and  apportionment:  and  it  is  provided  in  Idaho  (an 
exceptional  clause)  that  a  postal  card  be  mailed  oi-  delivered  to  each 
landowner  and  mailed  to  nonresident  landowners  with  the  provision 
that  for  the  purpose  of  notifying  nonresidents  and  others  whom  it  is 
not  reasonably  practicable  to  notify  by  mail,  the  notice  shall  be 
published.  The  board  at  the  meeting  must  hear  all  evidence  and 
classif}'  the  land  in  such  manner  as  to  secure  an  equitable  assessment. 

Any  j)erson  who  then  fails  to  appear  is  precluded  from  contesting 
except  after  a  special  apijlication  to  the  court  upon  confirmation  pro- 
ceedings showing  reasonable  excuse  for  such  failure.  If  an  owner 
objects  before  the  board  to  the  assessment  as  finally  fixed,  his  ob- 
jection being  oA^erruled,  such  objection  is  deemed  appealed  to  the  dis- 
trict court  to  be  heard  at  the  confirmation  proceedings.     (Sec.  2400.) 

The  secretary  of  the  board  is  the  assessor  of  the  district  and  must 
prepare  an  assessment  book. 

In  case  the  assessment  plan  (rather  than  tolls  and  charges)  is  used 
for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  and  operating  the  works,  the  board 
must  annually  proceed  to  levy  an  assessment  on  all  lands  for  such 
purposes.  This  assessment  shall  be  proportionate  to  the  benefits 
received  growing  out  of  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  works. 
The  board,  after  notice,  meets  as  a  board  of  correction  and  makes 
such  changes  as  mav  be  found  equitable.  (Sees.  2407  and  2400  as 
amended  by  L.  1911,' 194;  also  sec.  2408.) 

The  assessments  annually  become  a  lien  against  the  land  assessed, 
the  liens  having  priority,  as  regards  the  bond  issues  and  contracts 
with  the  United  States  if  both  are  outstanding,  in  the  order  of  the 
respective  dates.     (Sec.  2411  as  amended  L.  1915,  315.) 

The  assessments  are  payable  in  two  installments,  and  provision  is 
made  for  special  date  of  delinquency  in  order  to  facilitate  payment 
to  the  United  States  at  a  special  date  named  in  Federal  contracts. 
(Sec.  2412  as  amended  L.  1915.  206.) 

Special  assessments. — A  special  election  which  must  be  passed  by  a 
tAvo-thirds  majority  may  authorize  a  special  assessment  for  raising 
money  to  be  applied  to  any  purposes  under  the  act.  The  assessment 
so  levied  is  computed  and  collected  in  the  same  manner  as  other 
assessments  provided  by  the  act.     (Sec.  2391.) 

Drainage. — Any  irrigation  district  may,  Avhenever  necessary,  for 
the  benefit  of  lands  actually  requiring  drainage  or  for  the  protection 


112  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

of  other  lands  ^Yithill  said  district,  cause  drainaoe  canals  and  works 
to  be  constructed.  I'his  may  be  done  whether  the  irrigation  works 
have  actually  been  constructed  or  acquiied  or  not.  To  this  end  the 
dist]ict  shall  have  the  same  power  and  authority  as  it  has  respectino- 
irrigation.     (L.  1917,  74.) 

Confrination. — The  law  for  confii-niation  proceedings  in  Idaho  in- 
cludes not  only  the  organization  and  the  authorization  of  bonds,  but 
the  proceedings  in  the  matter  of  tiie  making  of  assessment  list  and 
apportionment.  Separate  petitions  in  the  ^•arious  portions  of  the 
proceedings  may  be  filed  and  remaining  proceedings  undertaken 
later,  but  such  further  proceedings  are  not  to  be  in  the  nature  of  a 
rehearing  of  the  luatter  previouslv  decided.  (Sec.  2401  as  amended 
L.  1915,  391.) 

In  the  findings  of  the  court  the  assessment  list  and  apportionment 
may  be  corrected  to  conform  to  the  rights  of  the  pai-ties  and  a  final 
decree  approving  and  conhrming  the  proceedings  mav  be  rentlered. 
(Sec.  2403.)  ,     '       • 

Irrespective  of  the  confirmatory  proceedings  above  referred  to, 
it  is  provided  that  no  action  shall  be  commenced  or  defense  made 
affecting  the  validity  of  the  organization  after  two  years  from  the 
entering  of  an  order  organizing  the  district. 

Bond  sales. — The  board  is  authorized  to  sell  the  bonds  from  time 
to  time  in  such  quantities  as  may  be  necessary,  and  bonds  may  be  de- 
posited with  the  United  States  at  90  per  cent  of  their  par  value, 
but  the  board  is  prohibited  from  selling  the  bonds  at  less  than  par 
value  and  accrued  interest.  They  may  be  sold  without  advertise- 
ment or  after  advertisement  to  the  highest  bidder.  If  it  is  found 
impossible  to  sell  the  bonds  or  best  to  withdraw  the  same  from  sale, 
the  bonds  may  be  canceled  and  the  board  may  levy  assessments  to  the 
amount  of  the  bonds  canceled. 

Assessments  in  lieu  of  canceled  bonds  are  collected  in  the  same 
manner  as  assessments  levied  under  the  remaining  provisions  of  the 
act,  but  such  assessments  shall  not  in  any  one  year  exceed  10  per 
cent  of  the  total  bond  issue  authorized  by  the  district  unless  a  greater 
assessment  be  authoi-ized  bv  a  majoritv  vote.  (Sec.  2404,  as  amended 
L.  1915,  313.) 

In  lieu  of  the  sale  of  bonds  and  payment  for  all  construction  work 
in  cash,  bonds  may  l)e  issued  as  such  payment  and  delivered  directly 
to  the  contractor.  Maintenance,  interest,  and  power  chargfes  may 
be  included  in  any  contract  for  construction  for  any  period  agreed 
upon  not  to  exceed  three  years,  and  when  so  included  the  charges 
mav  be  paid  in  bonds  of  the  district.  (Sec.  2404-a.  as  added  by  L. 
1913,  541.) 

The  bonds  and  interest  shall  be  paid  by  revenue  derived  from  as- 
sessment upon  the  land  of  the  district,  and  all  of  the  land  in  the  dis- 
trict shall  be  and  remain  liable  to  be  assessed  for  such  payment. 
After  a  two-thirds  majority  of  the  electors  shall  vote  favorably  at  a 
special  election  the  board  of  directors,  as  regards  any  portion  of  the 
period  from  the  time  that  bonds  begin  to  bear  interest  until  five  years 
after  water  has  been  used  on  the  district  lands,  may  pay  any  part  of 
such  interest  with  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  coupon  bonds  to  be 
issued  and  sold  for  said  purpose  in  lieu  of  paying  the  interest  by 
revenue  derived  from  assessment.     The  bonds  so  issued   and  sold 


IDAHO   STATUTES.  113 

shall  have  tlie  i^amo  prioi-itv  of  lien  as  ordiiiaiv  district  bonds.  (Sees. 
2405  to  2405-{',  as  amended  L.  1915.  118.) 

Delvnquent  ttiM-'  sales. — Ii-riiration  districts  are  authorized  to  be- 
come purchasers  at  delinquent  tax  sales,  with  the  same  ri^lits  as 
private  purchasers.  The  lands  so  acquired  may  be  conveyed  by  deed 
by  the  president  or  secretary  of  the  board  after  resolution  of  the 
board.  (Sec.  2414.)  The  redemption  period  is  three  years  from  the 
date  of  sale.     (Sec.  2415,  as  amended  L.  1917,  478.) 

Bkls  and  eontrcwt. — The  bids  for  this  work  may  be  rejected  and 
readvertisement  for  bids  issued,  but  the  board  is  not  authorized  to 
undertake  any  work  and  use  the  construction  fund  therefor  except 
after  a  petition  of  50  or  a  majority  of  the  landowners  of  the  district. 
'No  contract  shall  be  let  unless  there  is  sufficient  money  available  for 
full  payment.     (Sec.  2416,  as  amended  L.  1915,  315.  and  2417.) 

Expenses— How  defrayed. —  For  oro-anization.  operation,  manaofe- 
ment,  repair,  and  improvement  ])urposes  the  board  may  either  fix 
lates  of  tolls  and  charges  for  irrioation  or  may  levy  assessments 
or  employ  both  tolls  and  assessments.  In  case  assessment  therefor 
is  made,  the  procedure,  except  where  otherwise  provided,  ]oarticularly 
in  sections  2407  and  2409,  is  the  same  as  that  relating  to  the  payment 
on  bonds.  Special  assessments  become  a  lien  when  they  are  ordered. 
Tolls  mav  be  made  pavable  in  advance.  (Sec.  2419,  as  amended  L. 
1911,201".) 

Rights  of  way  are  dedicated  over  State  lands.     (Sec.  2421.) 

Electric-pmmr  plants. — The  board  is  o^iven  the  power  to  construct 
and  operate  electric-poAver  plants  and  other  requisites  for  ffeneratinpf 
and  transmitting  electric  power  and  for  pumping  water  for  irriga- 
tion and  domestic  use  or  to  contract  for  such  purposes.  The  board  may 
contract  for  sale  of  surplus  power  generated  for  delivery  at  the  plant 
or  within  the  district.  No  such  contract  shall  extend  for  more  than 
five  years,  nor  until  ratified  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  electors  mav  it 
involve  more  than  $1,000.     (Act  approved  Mar.  8,  1915,  137.) 

Annexation. — Annexation  to  a  district  may  be  initiated  by  holders 
of  title  representing  one-half  or  more  of  any  body  of  adjacent  lands. 
If  there  be  objection  and  an  election  be  held  a  majority  of  the  votes 
last  is  sufficient  for  annexation.     (Sees.  2423  to  2433.) 

Exclusion. — Exclusion  of  lands  from  any  district  is  provided  for 
in  three  cases,  one  of  which  must  be  specified  in  the  petition,  either 
that  the  lands  are  too  higli  to  be  watered  by  the  district  or  that 
the  owners  have  installed  a  sufficient  system  independent  of  the  dis- 
trict for  irrigation  because  of  the  failure  caused  by  the  district  not 
ownino;  a  sufficient  water  right  or  that  the  lands  are  not  agricultural 
or  farming  lands.     (Sec.  2434,  as  amended  L.  1911,  102.) 

The  lands  excluded,  however,  are  not  relieved  of  their  obligation 
to  pay  their  proportionate  share  already  created  and  existing  over 
any  bonded  indebtedness  of  the  district,  and  the  lands  shall  remain 
a  part  of  the  district  for  the  purpose  of  discharging  the  bonded 
debt.  No  provision  is  made  in  this  connection  for  the  contract  debt 
to  the  United  States.     (Sec.  2436  as  amended  L.  1911,  103.) 

An  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  board  denying  the  ])etition 
lies  to  the  district  court.     (Sec.  2437  as  amended  L.1911,  104.) 

Dissolution  and  modifieation  of  houndaries. — A  series  of  combined 
provisions  for  modification  of  boundaries  by  way  of  exclusion  of  land 

160047—20 8 


114  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

and  for  the  dissolution  of  the  district  is  in  force.  The  proceedings 
for  either  form  of  relief  are  begun  by  a  petition  by  25  or  a  majority 
of  land  owners  in  the  district  asking  for  an  election.  The  petition 
either  shall  state  that  the  outstanding  bonds,  "warrants,  and  other 
obligations  against  the  district  have  been  fully  satisfied  and  paid 
or  shall  set  forth  reasonable  grounds  for  the  belief  that  the  creditors 
of  the  district  will  assent  to  the  proposed  modification  or  dissolution. 

At  the  election,  after  notice,  all  persons  having  the  qualifications 
of  electors  under  the  general  laws  of  the  State  and  resident  in  the  dis- 
trict may  vote.  The  election  must  be  carried  by  a  majority  of  those 
voting,  and  thereafter  the  board  must  file  in  the  district  court  a  peti- 
tion that  the  proceedings  be  examined  and  confirmed,  setting  forth 
all  items  of  indebtedness  of  the  district,  with  the  name  and  residence 
of  the  creditor. 

The  proceedings  are  declared  to  be  in  the  nature  of  a  suit  to  quiet 
title  with  respect  to  such  district  lands  as  are  proposed  to  be  affected. 
The  board  is  plaintiff  and  the  creditors  are  parties  defendant.  If  it 
appears  to  the  court  from  proof  that  there  is  no  indebtedness,  or  if 
the  holders  of  the  outstanding  indebtedness  have  filed  no  objection 
to  the  proceedings  or  have  filed  their  consent  thereto,  the  court  shall 
enter  decree  confirming  proceedings,  describing  the  lands  involved, 
which  thereafter  are  considered  unaffected  by  any  of  the  matters 
done  by  the  district  while  such  lands  were  a  part  thereof.  The 
election  is  declared  ineffective  until  the  proceedings  have  been  con- 
firmed by  a  decree  of  the  district  court.  (Sees.  2437-a  to  2437-d,  in- 
clusive, added  by  L.  1917,  ch.  167,  497.) 

References  to  the  provisions  for  cooperation  between  districts  un- 
der the  Idaho  law  (sec.  2438)  are  made  in  the  general  discussion. 

State  lands. — No  State  lands  included  in  any  district  shall  be  as- 
sessed, and  the  assessment  and  taxation  provisions  are  expressly 
declared  inapplicable  to  such  lands.  (Sec.  2439  as  amended  L.  1917, 
493.) 

Kaksas.^ 

The  irrigation  district  law  of  Kansas  is  b}'  no  means  as  adequate 
as  those  of  most  of  the  States.  The  act  was  passed  in  1891  (ch.  133, 
art.  7),  and  will  be  found  in  the  General  Statutes  of  Kansas,  1915 
(sec.  5618  to  5641,  inclusive,  and  sees.  5666  to  5673,  inclusive),  hav- 
ing been  little  amended  since  its  first  enactment.  Its  provisions  do 
not  admit  of  as  general  utility  for  the  reclamation  of  arid  or  semi- 
arid  lands  as  those  of  most  States. 

Organization. — Petition  for  the  formation  of  a  district  is  ad- 
dressed to  the  board  of  county  commissioners  and  must  be  signed 
\)Y  not  less  than  three-fifths  of  the  resident  landowners  of  the  pro- 
posed district.  At  the  election  a  three-fifths  majority  of  those  vot- 
ing must  be  secured.     (Sec.  5623.) 

Officers. — The  officers  of  the  district  consist  of  a  president,  secre- 
tary and  treasurer,  who  are  the  board  of  irrigation  commissioners. 
(Sec.  5624.)  ■ 

The  board  is  authorized  to  appoint  a  superintendent  of  the  dis- 
trict whose  salary  is  prohibited  from  exceeding  $1,000  annually. 

»  See  p.  87  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion. 


KANSAS   STATUTES.  115 

Bunds. — The  method  of  issiiino-  bonds  is  cumbei'some  since  a  peti- 
tion must  be  addressed  to  the  board  of  county  commissioners  (sec. 
5627)  askinfr  foi;  the  callintr  of  an  election  and  this  ))etition  must 
be  signed  by  three-fifths  of  the  resident  landowners  of  the  district 
(sec.  5628).  This  election,  likewise,  must  pass  by  three-fifths  of  the 
votes  cast  (sec.  5630)  and  the  district  is  prohibited  from  issuing 
bonds  to  exceed  $10  per  acre  in  the  aggregate,  the  bonds  running  for 
not  less  than  5  nor  more  than  30  years  (sec.  5626).  Anotlier  election 
must  be  held  to  authorize  the  purchase  or  construction  of  irrigation 
works  with  such  bonds  if  such  a  step  should  be  undertaken  (sec. 
5632). 

Distribution  of  water. — The  board  has  charge  of  the  distribution 
of  water,  being  authorized  to  charge  such  rates  as  it  may  fix,  subject 
to  the  power  of  the  county  commissioners  in  the  fixing  of  maximum 
rates  for  the  use  of  water,  and  interest  shall  not  exceed  6  per  cent 
per  annum.     (Sec.  5626.) 

Assessment  and  levy. — The  sole  provision  relating  to  the  assess- 
ment and  levy  to  be  made  by  the  district  is  the  following: 

If  the  quarterly  repdrt  of  said  treasurer  of  said  lioard  for  .Tune  shall 
disclose  to  said  board  of  irrigation  commissioners  that  there  is  not  suflicient 
money  in  the  hands  of  the  treasurer  of  said  board  to  pay  tlie  necessary  cur- 
rent expenses,  and  pay  the  interest  on  the  bonds  of  said  district,  and  create  a 
sinlving  fund  for  the  redemption  of  the  said  bonds,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  said  board,  and  it  is  hereby  authorized  and  empowered,  to  levy  a  tax  on  all 
of  the  real  estate  dependent  upon  such  works  for  irrigation  in  said  district  to 
meet  the  expenditures  as  in  this  section  specified.     (Sec.  5638.) 

Ttoo  or  more  counties  involved. — A  separate  act  was  passed  in  1901 
(ch.  234),  providing  for  the  formation  of  irrigation  districts  com- 
prising contiguous  territory  lying  in  more  than  one  county.  In 
such  cases  both  the  petition  for  formation  and  that  for  the  holding 
of  an  election  to  vote  bonds  are  required,  in  contrast  with  the  pro- 
visions elsewhere,  to  be  signed  by  three-fifths  of  the  resident  land- 
owners in  each  respective  county  as  an  individual  unit.  The  issuance 
of  bonds  must  be  authorized  by  three-fifths  of  the  voters  of  each  of 
the  several  portions  of  said  district  lying  in  each  of  said  counties  at 
an  appropriate  election.     (Sec.  5666.) 

CHticism. — It  will  be  noted  that  the  maximum  bonded  indebted- 
ness is  insufficient  for  general  reclamation  propositions  since  a  maxi- 
mum of  $10  per  acre  is  prohibitive  in  most  reclamation  enterprises; 
also  the  taxing  provisions  are  extremely  meager.  Moreover,  there 
are  no  provisions  for  modification  of  the  boundaries  of  the  district 
for  judicial  confirmation  nor  for  cooperation  with  the  United  States. 

Montana.^ 

The  Montana  irrigation  district  act,  approved  March  18.  1909.  re- 
pealed an  earlier  act,  and  the  law  will  be  found  in  the  session  laws 
for  that  year,  pages  254  to  289.  and  the  amendatory  acts  constituting 
chapters  110  and  127  of  the  Session  Laws  of  1913,  pages  452  and  475 
to  479:  chapter  145  of  the  Session  Laws  of  1915.  pages  359  to  377, 
and  chapter  153,  Laws  of  1917.  pages  323  to  337. 

The  Montana  law  is  unique  in  providing  no  elections  by  the  land- 
owners, either  for  organization  or  for  the  authorization  of  bonds. 

'  See  p.  87  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion.  See  also  Addenda,  p.  167,  for 
1919  amendments. 


116  HANDBOOK   OF   TEETGATTOlSr   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

Formation. — Organization  in  this  State  is  undertaken  by  petition 
to  the  District  Court,  signed  by  a  majority  in  tlie  number  of  the 
holders  of  title  or  evidence  of  title  of  the  irrig-jible  lands,  who  must 
also  represent  a  majority  in  the  acreage  thereof.  (L.  1917,  328.) 
Hearing  is  had  upon  the  petiti(m.  (Sees.  2,  3,  4,  L.  1909.  255.) 
Entry  men  on  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States  are  deemed 
holders  of  evidence  of  title  under  the  act.     (L.  1917.  323.  4.) 

Purposes. — An  irrigation  district  may  be  formed,  not  only  to  pro- 
vide for  irrigation,  but  also  for  the  construction  of  works,  includ- 
ing drainage,  in  cooperation  with  the  United  States  or  for  the  gen- 
eral operation  or  maintenance  of  the  district.     (L.  1917,  323.) 

Lands  having  prior  mater  rights. — Lands  having  prior  water 
rights  appurtenant  thereto  shall  not  be  included  in  the  irrigation 
district  unless  each  owner  shall  consent  in  writing  that  his  lands  be 
thus  included.  Districts  formed  to  cooperate  with  the  United  States, 
however,  may  extend  their  boundaries  to  include  such  lands  upon 
j)etition  of  the  owners  of  two-thirds  only  of  the  acreage  of  the  lands 
to  be  included.  Moreover,  lands  with  water  rights  appurtenant 
served  by  a  system  supplying  ovei-  10.000  acres  may,  in  the  discre- 
tion of  the  court,  be  included  in  the  proposed  district  on  a  petition 
of  at  least  65  per  cent,  both  in  number  and  acreage,  of  the  holders 
of  the  land  having  water  rights  appurtenant  thereto  and  served  by 
the  same  system  of  irrigation  works.     (L.  1917,  331.) 

Hearing  on  organisation  petition. — The  hearing  before  the  court 
is  final  as  to  the  organization,  and  is  not  only  announced  by  publi- 
cation as  in  other  States,  but  notice  is  sent  to  nonresident  holders 
of  title  by  mail  prior  to  the  hearing.  (L.  1909,  sec.  3.)  The  method 
of  securing  jurisdiction  by  mailing  copies  of  the  petition  to  non- 
residents is  also  unusual  and  constitutes  a  less  efficient  means  of 
acquiring  jurisdiction  than  that  of  notice  by  publication.  If  it  is 
desired  to  require  notice  to  nonresidents  by  mail,  a  provision  such 
as  that  in  the  Oregon  statute  is  preferable  and  less  likely  to  create 
a  flaw  in  the  proceedings.  (See  Ore.  L.  1917,  p.  744.)  At  the  hear- 
ing the  court  may  make  such  changes  in  the  district  boundaries  as 
may  be  deemed  advisable,  excluding  lands  which  in  his  judgment  will 
not  be  benefited  by  the  system.     (L,  1917,  324.) 

Finding  of  court  conclusive. — The  court's  finding  is  declared  to 
be  conclusive  upon  all  the  owners  within  the  district  that  they  have 
assented  to  and  accepted  the  provisions  of  the  act  unless  appeal  bo 
made  to  the  Supreme  Court  within  60  davs  after  the  entrv  of  tlie 
order.     (L.  1917,  326.) 

Board  of  commissioners. — The  management  of  the  district  is  en- 
trusted to  a  board  of  commissioners.  The  first  board,  which  in  most 
instances  would  be  charged  with  the  principal  constructive  duties, 
is  appointed  by  the  court.  (L.  1917,  326.)  Thereafter  it  is  elected 
by  the  people.     (L.  1913,  264.) 

C o nstmction  iKorh. — The  board  is  precluded  from  having  construc- 
tion work  in  excess  of  $5,000  done  by  the  district,  being  required  by 
law  to  let  contracts  for  all  the  larger  work.  This  does  not  applj'^  to 
work  done  in  cooperation  with  the  United  States.     (L.  1915.  367.) 

Prior  to  undertaking  the  construction  of  the  irrigation  system  the 
engineering  plans  are  required  by  the  Montana  law  to  be  prepared 
in  full  detail  for  submission  to  the  board  of  commissioners.  After 
the  board  arrives  at  a  determination  of  the  amount  necessarv  to  be 


MONTANA  STATUTES.  117 

niised,  notices  of  siu  li  deteriiiinatioii  are  required  to  be  j>iveii  by 
letter  to  all  perilous  oi-  corporations  holding  title  or  evidence  of 
title  to  lands  within  said  district  at  their  last  known  post-office  ad- 
dress.    (L.  1917.  329,  30.) 

Contract  with  the  United  States. — Contract  with  the  United  States 
is  authorized  for  the  construction,  operation,  and  maintenance  of 
works  necessary  for  the  delivery  and  distribution  of  water  therefrom 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  reclamation  act  and  all  iicts 
amendatory  thereof  or  supplemental  thereto,  and  the  rules  and 
i-egulations  established  thereunder,  or  for  a  water  supply  under  any 
act  of  Congress  permitting  sucli  contract.  The  board  is  also  author- 
ized to  become  a  fiscal  agent  for  the  United  States  \uuler  the  icciaiun- 
tion  act.     (L.  1915,  360.) 

Qualifications  of  electors. — Persons  holding  title  or  evidence  of 
title  to  land  within  the  district  are  entitled  to  vote  at  elections  if 
qualified  as  electors  under  the  general  and  school  laws  of  the  State, 
or  if  guardians,  executors,  administrators,  or  trustees  residing  in  the 
State,  or  if  domestic  corporations  (in  which  case  they  shall  vote  by 
their  duly  authorized  agents).  An  elector  is  entitled  to  cast  one 
vote  for  each  40  acres  of  land  or  major  portion  thereof  owned  by 
him  within  the  district.  Any  elector,  however,  owning  20  acres  or 
less  is  entitled  to  vote.     (L.  1909,  sec.  19.)    - 

Nooninatimis. — Provision  for  the  filing  of  nominations  on  the  part 
of  five  electors  is  made  with  the  express  proviso  that  no  elector  is 
disqualified  from  voting  for  an}^  qualified  person,  whether  the  name 
appears  upon  the  official  ballot  or  not.     (L.  1909,  sec.  20.) 

Change  of  boundaries. —The  provisions  for  a  change  of  boundaries 
are  coupled  with  a  declaration  that  such  change  shall  not  impair  or 
discharge  any  contract,  obligation,  lien,  or  charge  for  or  upon  which 
the  district  was  or  might  become  liable  had  such  change  not  been 
made.     (L.  1909.  sec.  23.) 

The  petition  for  inclusion  of  additional  lands  need  not  be  signed 
by  the  holders  of  all  lands  proposing  to  be  adnntted,  but  only  by 
signers  representing  not  less  than  tw'o-thirds  of  the  acreage  thereof. 
(Sec.  24  of  L.  1909,  as  amended  by  L.  1915,  363.) 

It  is  provided  that  where  contract  has  been  entered  into  betAveen 
the  ITnited  States  and  the  district  no  such  order  shall  be  rendered 
until  the  assent  of  the  Secretarv  of  the  Interior,  in  writino;,  be  filed. 
(L.  1909,  sec.  24  as  amended  by  L.  1915,  366.) 

Change  m  assessable  area. — Novel  provision  is  made  in  Montana 
relative  to  lands  included  Avithin  the  boundaries  of  districts  where 
the  irrigable  acreage  is  fixed  at  a  greater  area  than  actually  exists. 
The  owner  of  such  lands  desiring  a  reduction  may  petition  the  court 
to  have  the  area  adjudicated,  the  statute  prescribing  in  detail  what 
must  be  set  forth  therein.  (L.  1915,  364.)  A  decree  is  finally  ren- 
dered after  publication  determining  the  irrigable  acreage  and  upon 
such  degree  future  assessments  are  based  and  past  assessments  are 
adjusted  in  favor  of  the  landowner  should  the  decree  lessen  the 
supposed  irrigable  area.  Such  decree  is  forever  conclusive  upon  the 
parties  (Id.  366). 

Lease  of  irngation  system:- — The  commissioners  may  lease  in  whole 
or  in  part  the  irrigation  system  or  the  Avater  supply  of  the  district 
provided  a  majority  in  number  and  acreage  of  the  district  owners 


118  HAISTDBOOK   OF   IREIGATIOjST   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

file  their  written  consent  to  the  making  of  such  lease.  (L.  1909. 
272.) 

Wafer  rights  and  apportionment. — The  water  is  appurtenant  to 
the  land,  the  owner,  however,  having  the  right  to  assign  the  use 
thereof  for  one  season  in  so  far  as  not  required  on  his  own  land. 
(L.  1909,  sec.  32  as  amended  by  L.  1915,  368.)  In  the  event  of  a  short- 
age the  supply  throughout  the  district  is  reduced  proportionately  ex- 
cept that  where  the  right  to  the  use  of  water  is  secured  in  accordance 
with  the  Federal  laws  the  apportionment  is  made  in  compliance 
therewith.     (L.  1909,  sec.  33,  as  amended  by  L.  1915,  368.) 

Substitution  of  toaster. — Owners  of  lands,  whether  within  the  dis- 
trict or  not,  already  entitled  to  water  may  arrange  by  contract  with 
the  district  for  the  substitution  or  exchange  of  water,  retaining  by 
statute  the  privilege  of  resuming  their  former  water  right  whenever 
the  receipt  of  the  substituted  water  shall  be  prevented.  (L.  1909, 
sec.  36  as  amended  by  L.  1915,  369.) 

Irrigated  lands  exempt  frotn  charges. — Except  by  consent  of  the 
owner,  district  lands  already  under  irrigation  can  not  be  taxed  for 
the  costs  of  construction  or  for  interest  or  principal  of  bonds  but  only 
for  operation  and  maintenance.  (L.  1909,  sec.  37,  as  amended  bv  L. 
1915,  369.) 

Limitations  on  indebtedness.- — Amendment  of  the  usual  provision 
pioliibiting  the  incurring  of  debts  in  excess  of  the  express  provisions 
of  law  has  been  made  in  Montana  in  favor  of  organization  expenses, 
surveys,  plans,  data,  etc.,  and  in  case  of  repairs  occasioned  by  unfore- 
seen contingencies.  In  such  case  an  additional  indebtedness  is  au- 
thorized by  the  Session  Laws  of  1913.  Two  acts  were  in  the  same  year 
enacted.  One  permits  an  indebtedness  aggregating  one-half  dollar 
per  acre.  (L..  1913,  452.  approved  Mar.  17,  1913.)  A  later  act,  how- 
ever, permits  an  indebtednes-s  of  one  dollar  per  acre.  (L.  1913,  475, 
approved  Mar.  18,  1913.) 

Bonds — issue. — Bonds  are  authorized  by  petition  of  the  landowners 
instead  of  by  election,  as  elsewhere.  The  petition  requires  the  signa- 
tures of  a  nuijority  in  number  and  acreage  of  the  holders  of  title  or 
evidence  of  title  and  is  addressed  to  the  board  of  connnissioners, 
specifying  the  general  tenor  of  the  bonds.  Upon  the  filing  of  such 
petition  for  bonds,  the  board  shall  direct  their  issuance  and  provide 
for  an  assessment.  Similarly  an  indebtedness  in  lieu  of  bonds  by  con- 
tract with  the  United  States  is  authorized  by  petition.  Petition  for 
authoritv  to  issue  bonds  is  required  to  "  specifv  the  rate  of  interest 
thereon.'"'     (L.  1909,  sec.  40,  amended  by  L.  1917",  332.) 

Bonds — confirmation. — Within  10  days  after  directing  the  issuance 
of  l)onds.  the  board  must  petition  the  district  court  to  determine  the 
validity  of  the  proceedings  relative  to  the  bonds  and  assessments. 
After  clue  notice,  hearing  is  had  upon  the  petition,  at  which  time  any 
person  interested  may  appear  and  contest  the  proceedings,  and  appeal 
from  an  adverse  decision.  The  decree  of  the  district  court  (unless 
appealed  from)  is  forever  conclusive  upon  the  world  as  to  the  validity 
of  the  bonds  and  assessments.     (L.  1909,  276.) 

Same — matuHty. — Bonds  may  be  made  to  mature  serially  or  not, 
in  the  discretion  of  the  board,  but  shall  not  run  for  more  than  30  years 
from  the  date  of  issuance.     (L.  1909,  279.) 

Same— registration. — The  board  mav.  if  it  desires,  provide  for  the 
registration  of  bonds.     (L.  1909,  280.)'  ' 


MONTANA  STATUTES.  119 

Lien  of  bonds. — Bonds  so  issued,  and  all  amounts  to  be  paid  to  the 
Ignited  States  under  any  conti'act.  shall  l)e  a  lien  upon  all  the  lands 
originally  or  at  any  time  included  in  the  district  for  whose  benefit  the 
district  was  organized  or  for  whose  benefit  the  contract  Avith  the 
United  States  was  made.  This  does  not  include  lands  merely  ex- 
changing water  within  the  district,  heretofoi'e  mentioned.  (L.  1917. 
333.) 

Assessment. — The  debt  shall  be  apportioned  upon  each  40-acre 
tract,  and  every  sejjarately  owned  subdivision  thereof,  l)y  dividing  the 
total  principal  of  the  indebtedness  by  the  numlier  of  acres  of  land 
within  said  district  actually  irrigable  from  its  system  of  Avorks,  and 
every  acre  of  said  land  shall  bear  and  be  assessed  for  its  equal  propor- 
tion thereof  and  the  interest  accruing  upon  such  proportion  thereof. 
An  owner  may.  at  the  time  of  annual  tax  ])ayment.  discharge  his 
lands  from  the  lien,  both  as  to  principal  and  interest,  by  paying  in 
full  the  total  sums  assessed  against  his  lands  with  interest  thereon  to 
the  end  of  the  year  in  which  payment  is  made.  Such  ]:)ayment  shall  be 
applied  by  the  district  to  the  retirement  of  the  bonds,  if  possible; 
otherAvise.  the  money  shall  be  placed  in  a  sinking  fund  and  invested 
as  provided  by  laAv.  (L.  1917,  335.)  These  provisions  for  appor- 
tionment of  the  debt  and  discharge  of  the  land  from  obligation  Avere 
injected  into  the  Montana  laAv  in  1917. 

The  apportionment  and  discharge  provisions  above  outlined  are 
helieved  to  be  subject  to  serious  objection  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
isecurity  of  the  creditors  of  the  district  and  criticism  of  it  is  offered 
in  the  general  discussion.     (See  page  57.) 

Equalisation. — Provision  is  made  for  the  equalization  of  the  ap- 
portionment and  assessment  at  the  hearing  on  confirmation  in  the 
district  court,  at  Avhich  time  a  dissatisfied  oAvnor  may  appear  and 
object.  Any  district  formed  before  the  passage  of  1917  act  may  avail 
itself  of  it.  Avith  the  consent  of  the  OAvners  and  all  holders  of  the 
bonds  of  the  district.     (L.  1917,  335.) 

Where  lands  are  added  after  the  construction  of  the  irrigation 
avorks,  they  are  charged  Avith  such  proportion  of  the  indebtedness 
for  such  works  as  the  district  court  shall  decide,  and  the  total  in- 
debtedness reapportioned  over  the  entire  area  of  the  district.  (L. 
1917,  335,  336.) 

Annval  levy. — Levy  for  general  expenses  is  made  each  year  and 
charged  against  the  lands  in  the  manner  outlined  above  and  with  a 
similar  provision  for  the  discharge  of  indiAddual  tracts  of  land  from 
lien  by  payment.     (L.  1915,  374.) 

Futuls  for  payment  of  bonds. — When  more  than  one  series  of  bonds 
sliall  have  been  issued  by  a  district,  the  funds  for  the  payment  of  each 
series  shall  be  kept  separate  and  distinct.     (L.  1909,  284.) 

Collections  niid  disbursements.— ^\\^  county  treasurer  shall  collect 
assessments  of  the  district  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  manner 
as  county  and  State  taxes  (L.  1909,  284),  and  shall  be  the  custodian 
of  the  district  funds,  disbursing  the  same  upon  orders  signed  by 
the  president  and  secretary  of  the  district  board,  except  as  to  pay- 
ments on  boiuls  and  interest  and  under  contract  Avith  the  United 
States,  in  Avhich  cases  no  order  shall  be  necessary.     (L.  1915,  375.) 

The  district  moneys  shall  be  i)roperly  divided  into  separate  funds, 
and  the  county  treasurer  is  liable  u])on  his  official  bond  for  the  safe 
keeping  and  proper  disbursement  of  such  funds.     (L.  1915,  376.) 


120  HANDBOOK   OF   lEKIGATION   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

Delinquent  taw  sales. — Sales  of  land  for  unpaid  taxes  and  assess- 
ments shall  be  made  in  the  same  manner  as  for  State  and  county 
taxes,  the  right  of  redemption  likewise  being  identical.  There  is  no 
j^rovision  for  the  district  to  purchase  such  lands  at  tax  sale,  but  when 
the}^  are  struck  off  to  the  county,  the  county  treasurer  is  required  to 
give  to  the  district  a  debenture  certificate  for  the  amount  of  the  taxes 
and  interest  due  to  the  district.  This  certificate  draws  interest  at  the 
rate  of  1  per  cent  a  month,  and  may  be  negotiated  by  the  district. 
When  sold  the  lien  of  the  district  vests  in  the  purchaser  until  the  tax 
is  collected  and  the  certificate  paid.     (L.  1913,  476,  477,  478.) 

Liability  of  district  officers. — In  addition  to  liability  upon  their 
bonds,  officers  guilty  of  violation  of  duty  are  subject  to  removal  from 
office  by  the  district  court  as  the  result  of  proceedings  instituted  for 
that  purpose  by  any  taxpayer  of  the  district.     (L.  1909,  286.) 

Right  of  icay. — The  right  of  wav  over  State  lands  is  expressly 
granted.     (L.  1909,  270.) 

District  hon/ls  as  investmen^.s. — The  law  prescribing  the  authorized 
investments  for  insurance  companies  of  Montana  is  amended  to  in- 
clude the  bonds  of  any  irrigation  district  organized  under  the  laws 
of  the  State  among  the  lawful  investments.     (L.  1913,  24.) 

XEBRASKA.^ 

The  Nebraska  irrigation  district  law  will  be  found  in  the  Revised 
Statutes  of  1913,  sections  3457  to  3528,  inclusive,  as  amended  or  en- 
larged bv  chapters  68.  69.  205.  laws  1915.  and  chapters  S.  80,  81,  82, 
83,  84,  190,  191,  192,  193.  195,  197,  laws  1917. 

Petition  for  formatioh. — The  petition  for  organization  must  bo 
signed  b;\'  a  majority  of  the  electors  who  own  lands  or  hold  leasehold 
estates  oi'  who  are  entrymen  of  Governnient  lands.  The  electorate 
includes  residents  of  Nebraska  owning  not  less  than  10  acres,  entry- 
men  of  Cxoveinment  land  within  the  district  or  residents  of  Nebraska 
holding  leasehold  estates  to  not  leas  than  40  acres  of  State  land 
within  ^he  district,  such  estates  to  continue  for  a  period  of  not  less 
than  five  years  from  the  date  when  the  elector  seeks  to  exercise  the 
franchise.  The  land  included  must  be  susceptible  of  one  mode  of 
irrigation  from  a  common  source  and  by  the  same  system  of  works. 

The  provision  is  added  that  where  waterAvays  have  been  constructed 
before  the  passage  of  the  act  having  sufficient  capacity  to  water  the 
land  thereunder  for  which  water  has  been  appropriated,  the  water- 
ways and  franchises  and  the  land  thereunder  shall  be  exempt  from 
the  operation  of  the  law  unless  the  district  be  formed  to  purchase 
such  waterwavs  and  franchises.  (Sec.  3457,  as  amended  L.  1917, 
187.) 

Irngation  plan. — More  than  usually'  elaborate  requirements  are 
imposed  with  regard  to  the  submission  of  engineering  details  with 
the  petition.  The  petition  must  be  filed  with  the  State  board  of  ir- 
rigation for  four  weeks  before  the  hearing,  and  the  secretary  of  such 
l>oard  must  examine  and  report  to  the  county  board  for  the  hearing. 
The  board  may  then  amend  such  plan  of  irrigation  before  calling  the 
election.  The  number  of  divisions  and  directors  may  be  submitted 
to  the  electorate  so  as  to  provide  for  any  multiple  of  three  divisions 

'  See  p.  87  for  the  pui-pose  and  scope  of  this  discussion.  See  also  Addenda,  p.  168,  foi 
1919  amendments. 


NEBRASKA   STATUTES.  121 

and  directors  if  so  voted.  One-third  of  the  directors  retire  each 
year.  An  election  upon  a  i)r()posed  chanoe  in  the  niiml)er  of  dii-ec- 
tors  is  called  n])()ii  a  })etiti()n  1»\  20  per  cent  of  the  electors.  (Sec. 
^458,  as  amended  L.  1917,  191.)' 

Organization  election. — The  or^janization  election  is  conducted  in 
accordance  with  the  <>eneral  laws  of  the  State  and  a  majority  of  the 
votes  cast  is  sufficient.     (Sec.  3459.) 

Officerfi. — The  oHicers.  in  addition  to  the  directors,  consist  of  an 
assessor  and  a  treasurer  who  are  elected  by  the  voters  of  the  district. 
(Sec.  3400,  as  amended  L.  1915,  170.) 

Distribution  of  '^/'afe/'.— Water  is  apportioned  ratably  upon  the 
basis  of  the  ratio  Avhich  the  last  assessment  bears  to  the  whole  sum 
assessed  upon  the  district.  The  water  right  attaches  to  and  follows 
the  tract  to  which  it  is  apportioned  under  lease  or  sale.  The  board, 
however,  is  authorized  by  by-law  to  provide  for  the  suspension  of 
water  delivery  to  any  land  upon  whicli  irrigation  taxes  levied  shall 
remain  due  and  unpaid  for  two  vears.  (Sec.  3465  as  amended,  L. 
1917,  194.) 

Transfer  of  prater  right. — If  any  tract  of  land  to  which  a  water 
right  attaches  shall  become  subiri'igated  so  that  water  is  no  longer  of 
benefit  for  irrigation  purposes,  the  owner  may  apply  to  the  board 
to  exclude  such  lands  from  the  district,  releasing  all  claim  to  a  water 
right  upon  such  land  and  applying  for  a  permit  to  transfer  his  right 
to  any  other  land  upon  which  it  may  be  profitably  used.  He  must 
apply  to  have  such  new^  tract  included  within  the  boundaries  of  the 
district  and  the  tract  formerly  entitled  to  water  excluded.  The  order 
of  exclusion  and  inclusion  and  the  transfer  may  then  be  made.  A 
certified  copy  of  the  order  is  filed  with  the  register  of  deeds. 

This  section  must  not  be  construed  to  authorize  the  board  to  in- 
clude any  tract  unless  the  owner  obligate  the  same  to  pay  the  same 
rate  per  acre  as  all  other  lands  have  originally  paid  or  have  been 
obligated  for  in  the  matter  of  construction  costs.  The  board  must 
make  all  necessary  arrangements  for  lateral  rights  of  way  from  the 
main  canal  to  every  tract  of  land  subject  to  assessment  (Id.) 

Status  of  district  property. — -After  the  customary  provision  that 
the  district  holds  all  property  in  trust  for  uses  under  the  act,  pro- 
vision is  made  that  the  board  may  convey  property  in  whole  or  in 
part  to  the  United  States  in  trust  or  to  any  trustee  for  any  period  not 
exceeding  30  years,  when  authorized  to  do  so  by  the  affirmative  vote 
of  a  majority  of  the  (lualified  electors  voting  on  the  proposition  after 
notice  as  outlined  in  the  section.     (Sec.  3467  as  amended  L.  1917. 196.) 

All  of  the  engineering  work  must  be  done  under  the  direction  of 
a  competent  irrigation  engineer  and  certified  by  him.  The  board 
must  submit  a  copy  of  the  engineering  report  to  the  secretary  of  the 
State  board  of  irrigation,  highways,  and  drainage,  who  must  file  a 
report  with  the  board  containing  such  matters  as  the  secretary  of  the 
State  board  may  deem  desirable.     (Sec.  3469.) 

Annual  repoii. — Provision  is  made  for  an  annual  report  by  the 
board  of  directors  to  the  secretary  of  the  State  board  of  irrigation 
in  regard  to  construction  work,  plan  of  irrigation,  etc.  The  statute 
provides  for  the  seci'etary  making  suggestions  and  recommendations 
to  the  district  board  as  lie  uiav  deem  for  the  best  interest  of  the 
district.     (Sec.  3469.) 


122  HANDBOOK   OF   IREIGATIOlSr   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

Bonds. — -Tlie  directors  then  determine  the  amount  of  money  neces- 
sary and  call  an  election  upon  an  issue  of  bonds,  the  said  issue  not 
to  exceed  the  actual  estimated  cost  of  construction  and  purchase,  to- 
gether with  the  first  year's  interest  upon  the  bonds.  Bonds  run  for 
20  years,  installments  upon  the  principal  being  payable  from  the 
eleventh  to  the  twentieth  years,  inclusive,  with  the  proviso  that  by 
a  majority  vote  the  bonds  may  be  so  drawn  as  to  mature  in  any  num- 
ber of  years  less  than  20. 

It  may  also  be  provided  by  a  majority  vote  that  payment  be 
made  of  interest  at  a  rate  not  exceeding  6  per  cent  on  all  due  and 
unpaid  interest  coupons  attached  to  valid  outstanding  bonds,  whether 
previousl}'  or  subsequently  issued  and  sold,  from  the  date  of  registra- 
tion of  such  coupons  for  payment,  or,  if  previously  registered,  from 
the  date  of  the  election  to  pay  such  interest,  until  paid.     (Sec.  3469.) 

Bonds  can  not  be  sold  for  less  than  95  per  cent  of  tlie  face  value. 
(Sec.  3470.) 

The  elate  of  matuiity  of  any  outstanding  issue  of  bonds  may  be 
extended  for  any  peiiod  not  exceeding  40  years  by  contract  with  the 
holders  thereof:  or  refunding  bonds  may  be  issued  to  bear  not  ex- 
ceeding 6  per  cent  interest  and  to  mature  in  not  exceeding  40  years. 
(L.  1917.  463.) 

Assessment.— -Tho,  bonds  and  interest  thereon  shall  be  paid  by  reve- 
nue derived  from  an  annual  assessment  upon  the  real  property  of  the 
district  and  all  real  property  of  the  district  shall  be  and  remain  liable 
to  be  assessed  for  such  payments  and  for  payments  due  the  United 
States  under  an}^  contract.     (Sec.  3471  as  amended,  L.  1915,  175.) 

The  assessor  must  assess  all  real  property  of  the  district  at  its  full 
cash  value  less  the  value  of  all  improvements  thereon.  He  shall  also 
assess  all  leasehold  estates  in  State  lands  at  the  full  cash  value 
thereof  less  all  improvements.  City  and  town  lots  Mdthin  irrigation 
districts  whicli  are  used  exclusively  for  purposes  other  than  agricul- 
tural are  not  to  be  assessed  or  taxed  so  long  as  so  used.  (Sec.  3472  as 
amended,  L.  1917,  188.) 

Equidhation  and  Zg'yy.— The  board  of  directors  meets  as  a  board 
of  ec|ua]ization.  (Sec.  3473.)  Thereafter  the  board  levies  an  assess- 
ment sufficient  to  raise  the  annual  interest  and  principal  and  all  pay- 
ments to  become  due  to  the  United  States  during  the  ensuing  year 
Avliich.  Avhen  collected,  go  into  the  bond  and  United  States  contract 
fund.  In  addition  the  board,  if  it  deems  necessary,  may  levy  an 
assessment  for  care  and  maintenance  of  the  works,  salaries,  and  gen- 
eral expenses  to  go  into  the  general  fund. 

The  secretary  must  compute  and  enter  in  the  assessment  books  the 
respective  sums  to  be  paid  on  the  property  and  shall  certify  to  the 
count}'  clerk  of  the  county  where  the  land  is  located  the  amount  of 
taxes  in  each  fund  levied  upon  each  tract,  and  the  county  clerk  must 
enter  the  amount  of  each  fund  in  separate  columns  on  the  tax  list. 
(Sec.  3475  as  amended,  L.  1915,  175.) 

Collectioni  of  taaces. — All  tax  lists  when  delivered  to  the  county 
and  township  treasurers  shall  contain  all  irrigation  district  taxes 
levied  on  each  tract  and  the  general  fimd  tax  shall  be  collected  by 
the  county  and  township  treasurers  in  the  same  time  and  manner  as 
other  taxes  are  collected.  The  taxes  are  payable  to  the  county  treas- 
urer in  the  same  manner  and  at  the  same  time  as  county  taxes  are 
paid  (Id.). 


NEBRASKA   STATUTES.  123 

Result  of  faihore  to  assess. — In  case  of  tlie  neglect  or  refusal  of  the 
board  of  directors  to  have  the  assessment  and  levy  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonds  and  all  payments  under  contract  obligations  to  the 
United  States,  then  the  assessment  of  the  property  for  county  pur- 
poses after  equalization  shall  become  the  basis  for  the  district  assess- 
ment and  the  county  board  shall  cause  an  assessment  roll  of  the  dis- 
trict to  be  prepared  and  make  the  necessary  levy.  (Sec.  3475,  as 
amended,  L.  1915,  175.) 

Limits  ujyon  warrant  issiu\ — Districts  arc  prohibited  from  issuing 
warrants  in  any  year  exceeding  90  per  cent  of  the  levy  for  said  year 
^ith  the  proviso  that  in  case  of  due  and  outstanding  obligations  con- 
tracted prior  to  the  year  in  which  any  levy  is  made,  the  district 
board  shall  have  power  to  make  an  additional  levy,  not  to  exceed  2 
mills  on  the  dollar  assessed  valuation,  to  create  a  special  fund  for 
the  payment  of  past  obligations.     (Sec.  3476.) 

Delmquent  taxes.— A\\  assessments  draw  interest  at  10  per  cent 
from  the  1st  day  of  May  of  the  year  following  that  in  which  assess- 
ment is  made  until  the  assessments  are  paid  or  the  property  sold 
for  the  payment  thereof.  County  and  township  treasurers  collect 
assessments  in  the  same  manner  as  other  taxes  against  real  estate  are 
collected  and  the  revenue  laws  of  the  State  for  collection  and  sale 
are  made  applicable  to  the  district  taxes.  The  district  may  become  a 
purchaser  at  tax  sale  at  its  option.  Leaseholds  in  State  lands  can  be 
sold  for  delinquency.  (Sec.  3477,  as  amended,  L.  1915.  178;  L.  1917, 
292.) 

Refund  of  taxes. — When  any  person  pays  an  assessment  under  pro- 
test, no  refund  can  be  made  unless  he  is  able  to  show  by  affidavit 
either  that  the  assessment  is  levied  upon  lands  outside  of  the  district, 
that  the  title  to  the  lands  is  in  the  State,  that  the  lands  could  not  be 
benefited  by  irrigation  either  on  account  of  subirrigation  or  on  ac- 
count of  being  city  or  town  lots  used  exclusively  for  purposes  other 
than  agriculture  or  grazing,  or  that  the  lands  are  not  susceptible  of 
irrigation  from  the  district  canal.  (Sec.  3478,  as  amended,  L.  1917, 
189.) 

Federal  puhlic  lands. — Where  the  title  is  in  the  United  States  the 
lands  may  still  be  assessed  so  far  as  amenable  under  the  provisions 
of  the  act  of  August  11,  1910.  (Sec.  3478,  as  amended,  L.  1917,  189 
and  471.) 

Constrnoction  of  worlcs. — ^Provision  is  made  for  building  the  works 
out  of  the  construction  fund  or  by  the  use  of  bonds  at  their  par 
value  after  advertisement  for  sale  and  no  bids  being  received  at 
95  per  cent  or  upward  of  their  face  value.  Additional  bonds, 
having  a  subsequent  lien,  may  be  voted  in  case  the  original  issue 
prove  insufficient  to  complete  the  plans;  but  in  lieu  of  additional 
bonds  the  directors  may  complete  the  system  by  the  levy  of  an 
assessment.     (Sec.  3482,  as  amended,  L.  1915;  180.) 

Running  expenses. — Rates  of  tolls  and  charges  may  be  employed 
to  defray  the  organization,  operation,  management,  repair  and  im- 
provement expenses  in  lieu  of  the  assessment  plan,  or  a  combined 
method  of  tolls  and  assessments  may  be  employed.  If,  after  the 
annual  assessment,  the  funds  provided  for  the  current  year  on  account 
of  unforeseen  contingencies,  are  found  to  be  insufficient  for  the  proper 
maintenance  and  operation  of  the  district,  the  board  is  granted  the 


124  HANDBOOK   OF   IRKIGATION   DISTEICT   LAWS. 

power  to  borrow  additional  funds,  not  to  exceed  50  cents  per  acre 
for  district  lands,  pledging  the  credit  of  the  district  for  the  same. 
The  amount  so  borrowed  sliall  be  included  in  the  estimate  for  the 
levy  of  the  ensuing  \enr  iov  the  general  fund.  (Sec.  3482,  as 
amended,  L.  1915,  180.) 

/Special  assessments. — A  majority  of  the  votes  cast  at  an  election 
called  to  pass  upon  special  assessments  is  necessary  for  their  author- 
ization. The  rate  of  assessment  is  ascertained  b.y  deducting  15  per 
cent  for  anticipated  delinquencies  froin  the  aggregate  assessed  value 
of  the  property  in  the  district  as  shown  on  the  assessment  roll  for 
the  current  year,  and  then  dividing  the  sum  by  the  remainder  of 
such  aggregate  assessed  value.  This  assessment  is  collected  in  the 
same  manner  as  others,  the  revenue  laws  being  made  applicable. 
(Sec.  3486.) 

Piiorlt'}/  of  ohUgations. — The  lien  for  the  bonds  of  any  series  is  a 
preferred  lien  to  that  of  any  subsequent  series  and  any  contract  ob- 
ligation to  the  United  States  has  a  preference  over  bonds  subse- 
quently issued.     (Sec.  3477  as  amended  L.  1915,  178.) 

Dralnacic. — The  usual  provision  prohibiting  unauthorized  debts 
ts  followed  by  the  proviso  that  any  district  shall  have  the  power  to 
and  it  shall  be  its  duty  to  provide  for  the  proper  drainage  of  all  dis- 
trict lands  which  have  been  subirrigated  bv  I'eason  of  the  laAvful  use 
of  water  from  the  district  canal  by  the  owner  or  lessee  of  the  lands 
subirrigated,  or  from  any  cause  not  the  fault  or  by  the  consent  of 
such  owner,  and  for  such  jDurpose  the  district  shall  have  authority  to 
levy  special  assessments  or  otherwise  provide  funds  necessary  prop- 
erly to  .drain  such  lands.  It  may  conduct  the  drainage  water  to  other 
lands  upon  Avhich  the  same  niay  be  lawfully  used  or  return  it  to  the 
stream  from  vrhich  its  canal  is  taken.  The  powers  granted  include 
that  of  entering  into  a  contract  with  the  United  States  for  drainage 
of  district  lands.     (Sec.  3487  as  amended  L.  1915,  181.) 

Change  of  houndaries. — The  boundaries  may  be  modified  sul^ject 
to  the  requirement  that  the  change  shall  not  affect  the  status  of  the 
district  or  impair  am^  obligation,  lien  or  charge.     (Sec.  3491.) 

Inchmon  of  land. — A  petition  for  the  inclusion  of  additional  land 
may  be  signed  bv  holders  of  title  representing  one-half  or  more  of 
contiguous  body  of  lands  adjacent  to  the  district.  (Sec.  349*2.)  In 
case  contract  has  been  made  with  the  United  States  no  change  shall 
be  made  in  the  boundaries  unless  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall 
consent.     (Sec.  3498  as  amended  by  L.  1915,  181.) 

If  an  election  is  held  after  objections  made  a  majority  is  sufficient 
to  authorize  the  annexation.     (Sec.  3499.) 

Exclusion  of  lands. — The  exclusion  provisions  contain  clauses  that 
no  land  shall  be  held  or  taxed  by  any  district  which  can  not  from 
any  natural  cause  be  irrigated  thereb}^  (Sec.  3506.)  If  the  assent 
of  the  bondholders,  or  that  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  where 
contract  with  the  United  States  has  been  made,  is  not  given,  the 
board  must  dismiss  the  petition  for  exclusion.  (Sec.  3508  as  amended 
by  L.  1915,  182.)  Where  there  is  an  objection  by  some  other  inter- 
ested partv,  and  an  election  results,  a  majoritv  of  the  votes  cast  is 
sufficient.  '  (Sec.  3510.) 

(Umfrin at/on. — Confirmation  proceedings  of  the  usual  t^'pe  are 
required  before  the  issuance  and  sale  of  any  bonds  (sec.  3515)  ;  but 


i 


NEBRASKA   STATUTES,  125 

are  optional  in  case  of  any  contract  with  the  United  States.      (L. 
1917.  400.) 

Utgistratlou  of  bonds. — After  the  decree  is  secured,  following  the 
usual  provisions  of  law  the  board  must  prepare  a  written  statement 
of  tlie  proceedings  from  the  beginning,  including  the  decree,  certify 
the  same  under  oath,  and  file  it  with  the  auditor  of  public  accounts. 
The  latter  officer  then  examines  the  statements  and  the  bonds,  and  if 
satished  that  the  law  has  been  complied  with  he  must  record  the 
statement  and  register  the  bonds.  No  bonds  shall  be  issued  or  valid 
luiless  thev  are  so  registered  and  indorsed  bv  the  auditor's  certihcate 
showing  that  they  are  issued  pursuant  to  law  and  are  in  all  respects 
in  due  form. 

Bonds  are  investments. — The  board  of  educational  land  and  school 
fluids  is  authorized  to  invest  so  much  of  the  perpetual  school  funds 
of  the  State  as  nuiy  be  deemed  expedient  in  irrigation  district  bonds 
so  registered. 

Eegistration  is  optional  as  to  bonds  theretofore  issued  or  those 
being  issued  Avhen  the  amendatory  provision  was  made.  (Sec.  8519, 
as  amended  L.  1917,  03.) 

Water  sufply. — Districts  may  go  outside  of  the  State  for  their 
Avater  supply  and  ai'e  authorized  to  make  the  necessary  contracts  to 
secure  a  supply  from  other  States.  (Sec.  3520.)  If  a  contract  for  the 
water  supply  provides  for  the  payment  of  the  entire  purchase  price 
^vithin  one  year  from  the  making  of  contract,  a  resolution  shall  be 
passed  and  the  purchase  price  must  be  provided  for  at  the  same  time 
:as  the  levy  for  other  taxes.     (L.  1915,  441.) 

If  the  contract  provides  for  payment  to  be  extended  for  a  period 
more  than  a  year,  the  board  must  receive  authority  at  an  election 
at  which  the  majority  of  votes  cast  shall  be  favorable.  Thereafter  a 
tax  must  be  levied  sufficient  to  pav  the  amounts  which  become  due. 
(L.  1915,  442.) 

Any  irrigation  district  which  shall  have  purchased  a  water  supply 
and  issued  bonds  may  arrange  for  the  surrender  and  rescission  of  the 
contract  upon  the  surrender  and  cancelhition  of  bonds  in  an  amount 
equal  to  the  bonds  issued  in  payment  for  such  water  supply,  and  if 
the  Avater  supply  was  included  in  the  purchase  price  of  an  irrigation 
system  the  board  may  arrange  for  the  surrender  and  rescission  of  the 
contract  on  the  cancellation  of  bonds  equal  to  the  part  of  the  purchase 
price  Avhich  was  represented  bv  the  value  of  such  contract  for  water 
supply.     (L.  1915.  442.) 

(' out  met  inth  United  States. — Any  irrigation  or  drainage  district 
is  empowered  to  enter  into  contract  with  the  United  States  Avhereby 
the  bonds  of  the  district  are  guaranteed  by  the  United  Stjites  or 
financial  credit  is  extended  to  the  district  and  for  the  sale,  purcliase, 
or  use  of  irrigation  or  drainage  systems  or  other  property  owned 
or  to  be  acquired  for  the  use  of  such  district  and  may  borrow  money 
to  meet  anv  contractual  obligation  to  the  United  States.  (L.  1915. 
461;  L.  1917.  407.) 

Provision  is  also  made  for  full  cooperation  Avith  the  United  States 
imder  the  reclamation  laws.     (L.  1917,  464.) 

Any  irrigation  or  drainage  district  may  accept  the  provisions  of 
any  act  of  Congress  applicable  to  such  district  and  obligate  itself 
to  comply  with  such  laAvs,  and  such  rules  and  regulations  as  may  be 


126  HANDBOOK    OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

promulgated  by  any  department  of  the  United  States  in  pursuance 
of  such  acts.  The  district  shall  then  be  governed  by  the  laws  of  the 
State  relating  to  irrigation  and  drainage  districts  except  in  such 
things  as  may  be  otherwise  provided  for  such  districts.  This  act 
shall  not  limit  the  rights  Avhich  any  district  has  to  purchase  a  water 
supply  or  otherwise  to  contract.     (L.  1915,  461.) 

Dissolution. — Discontinuance  of  an  irrigation  district  may  be  initi- 
ated by  petition  to  the  board  of  directors  by  a  majority  of  the  assess- 
ment payers  representing  a  majority  of  the  acreage  of  irrigable  land. 
If  upon  an  election  a  majority  is  for  discontinuance,  the  board  may 
proceed  to  adjust,  settle,  and  compromise  all  indebtedness  of  what- 
ever form. 

Same — Sale  of  property. — The  board  is  authorized  to  sell  the  canal 
franchises  and  property  at  not  less  than  a  valuation  to  be  fixed  by  a 
board  of  three  appraisers,  one  of  which  shall  be  named  by  the  board 
of  directors,  one  by  the  county  board,  and  these  two  appraisers  shall 
appoint  a  third.  The  appraisers  report  in  writing  to  the  board  of 
directors,  and  the  property  is  advertised  as  ma}^  seem  to  be  for  the 
best  interests  of  the  district.  If  the  bids  are  rejected  by  the  board, 
the  property  may  be  sold  after  private  negotiations  and  the  purchase 
price  may  be  paid  part  in  cash  and  part  in  deferred  payments,  bear- 
ing the  same  interest  as  the  bonded  indebtedness  of  the  district,  if 
any.  After  sale  of  the  property  the  board  shall  make  a  settlement, 
payment,  and  redemption,  if  possible,  of  all  outstanding  bonded  ancl 
other  indebtedness  of  the  district,  but  shall  in  no  case  pay  more  than 
the  market  value  ^  of  such  outstanding  bonds  with  interest  up  to  the 
time  of  pajnnent,  and,  in  cases  where  bonds  not  yet  due  can  not  be 
redeemed  by  reason  of  the  refusal  of  the  owners  to  surrender  them 
before  due,  the  board  may  invest  the  surplus  money,  after  paying  all 
debts  that  can  be  paid,  in  State,  count}',  or  other  safe  bonds  bearing 
the  same  or  greater  rate  of  interest,  if  possible,  than  the  district 
bonds  outstanding. 

Same — Continued  assessment. — If  the  amount  realized  from  the 
sale  of  the  district  propert}-,  together  with  other  monej^  of  the  dis- 
trict, is  insufficient  for  the  i^ayment  of  all  the  debts,  assessments  shall 
continue  to  be  made  against  the  lands  included  in  the  district  in  the 
manner  provided  by  law  for  assessments  to  pa}^  bonds  or  other  debts 
of  irrigation  districts  until  enough  is  raised  fully  to  pay  all  obliga- 
tions. In  cases  where  bonds  and  other  obligations  of  irrigation  dis- 
tricts shall  be  issued  after  the  passage  of  the  act,  they  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  redemption  by  the  board  of  directors  of  such  irrigation  dis- 
trict as  soon  as  its  property  and  franchise  shall  be  sold  after  such 
district  has  elected  to  discontinue. 

After  disposition  of  the  property  shall  have  been  made  and  all 
obligations  paid,  the  report  of  the  board  shall  be  filed  in  the  office  of 
the  State  board  of  irrigation,  and  if  any  person  or  corporation  have 
i]ny  claim  against  such  district  not  settled  or  disposed  of  and  shall 
neglect  to  bring  suit  within  five  years  from  the  time  of  the  filing  of 
such  report,  such  claim  shall  be  forever  barred.     (Sec.  3521.) 

No  express  provision  is  made  in  the  discontinuance  statute  for  the 
assent  of  the  United  States  where  Federal  contract  has  been  made. 

'Criticism  <if  this  provision   will  be  found  in  tlie  general  discussion.      (P.   86. ) 


NEVADA   STATUTES.  127 

Nevada.^ 

The  irrigation  district  law  in  Nevada  was  approved  March  20, 
1911,  and  is  to  be  found  in  tlie  Revised  Laws  of  Xevada,  1912  (sees. 
4723  to  4791,  inckisive).  This  was  amended  by  the  act  of  March 
29,  1915  (L.  1915,  cli.  278,  434)  and  bv  the  act  of  March  22,  1917 
(L.  1917,  ch.  150,  255). 

^  Pwyoses. — The  act  authorizes  organization  not  only  for  irriga- 
tion, but  also  for  drainage  purposes,  and  for  cooperation  with  the 
Federal  Government. 

Petition. — Organization  is  initiated  by  petition  to  the  county  com- 
missioners signed  by  a  majority  of  the  landowners,  Avho  must  repre- 
sent at  least  one-half  of  the  total  area  of  the  district.  Signers  must 
be  holders  of  title  or  evidence  of  title  to  not  less  than  five  acres  of 
irrigable  land,  entrymen  upon  public  lands  of  the  United  States,  or 
the  State,  however,  being  qualified,  the  former  only  pursuant  to  the 
act  of  Congress  of  August  11, 1916.     (L.  1917,  255.) 

In  case  the  county  board  shall  deny  or  dismiss  the  petition  upon 
insufficient  reasons,  a  writ  of  mandamus  issuing  out  of  the  district 
court  is  the  remedy  expressly  stated.  If  allowed  by  the  county  board 
an  election  is  ordered.     (L.  1917,  256.) 

Electors  and  elections. — Male  and  female  persons  of  the  age  of 
21  or  more,  whether  resident  of  the  district  or  not,  if  bona  fide 
holders  of  title  as  defined  in  section  1  to  land  situated  in  the  district, 
are  each  entitled  to  one  vote  at  any  election  except  upon  a  bond  issue 
or  contract  with  the  United  States,  or  other  election  to  authorize  in- 
debtedness. In  the  latter  class  of  elections  each  qualified  voter  may 
cast  one  vote  for  each  dollar,  oi-  major  fraction  thereof,  of  benefit 
or  assessment  apportioned  to  his  land,  and  at  such  elections  a  mem- 
ber of  the  election  board  shall  indorse  on  the  ballot  the  number  of 
votes  to  which  the  elector  is  entitled.     (Id.  257.) 

This  provision  placing  the  control  of  irrigation  districts  upon  the 
dollar  basis  is  not  as  democratic  as  other  States  have  deemed  desir- 
able. As  a  matter  of  results  the  small  American  home  owner  has 
been  found  to  be  as  wise  and  as  conservative  a  voter  in  the  affairs 
of  public  corporations  as  is  necessary  for  the  conduct  of  their  affairs, 
and  perhaps  he  is  fully  as  public-spirited  as  the  owners  of  large 
estates  who,  under  the  Nevada  law,  are  given  the  great  voting  power. 

Guardians,  executors,  and  administrators  are  authorized,  without 
mention  of  court  order  in  the  premises,  to  sign  petitions,  vote,  and 
otherwise  exercise  the  rights  of  individual  owners.  Corporations 
and  partnerships  holding  land  are  also  considered  as  persons  entitled 
to  all  rights  of  natural  persons,  and  the  president  of  the  corporation 
or  other  person  duly  authorized  by  him  may  sign  any  petition  or 
cast  any  vote  on  behalf  of  the  corporation  at  a  district  election.  (L. 
1917,271.) 

The  organization  election  requires  a  majority  onlv  of  the  votes 
cast.    (L.  1917,  258.) 

Registration  prior  to  voting  is  required,  the  laws  of  Nevada  being 
almost  unique  in  this  respect.     (L.  1917,  sec.  5,  260.) 

Officers. — The  officers  of  the  district,  in  addition  to  the  directors, 
are  a  president,  elected  from  the  district  board,  and  a  secretary  and  a 

^  See  p.  87  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion.  See  also  Addenda,  p.  168,  for 
changes  made  by  substitute  act  passed  in  1910. 


128  HANDBOOK    OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

treasurer  appointed  by  the  board  and  holding  office  during  its  pleas- 
ure (L.  1915,  437)  ;  also  the  secretary  exercises  the  functions  of  as- 
sessor (Rev.  L.  4755). 

Local  iTYiprovement  pfovWions. — The  important  local  improvement 
provisions  of  the  Nevada  law  will  be  found  outlined  in  the  general 
discussion  (p.  76). 

Limitations  on  indebtedness. — To  the  usual  prohibition  against 
the  incurring  of  debts  in  excess  of  the  express  provisions  of  law  is 
added  a  provision  for  the  incurring  of  a  limited  liability  for  organi- 
zation, and,  furthermore,  an  annual  tax  of  3  cents  per  acre  may  be 
levied  for  the  ordinarv  and  current  expenses  of  the  district.  (L. 
1915,  439.) 

Plan  of  operations. — It  is  the  duty  of  the  board  of  directors  to 
formulate  a  general  plan  of  operations,  including  proposed  con- 
struction work,  calling  an  election  upon  a  bond  issue  or  contract 
with  the  United  States.  A  two-thirds  majority  of  the  votes  cast  is 
required  to  approve  the  plan.     (L.  1917,  266-267.) 

Assessments. — All  the  land  in  the  district  remains  liable  to  be 
assessed  for  pavments  upon  the  bonds  or  on  contract  with  the  United 
.States.     (L.  1915.  442.) 

Assessments  are  based  upon  an  apportionment  of  benefits  and  are 
do'iermined  once  and  for  all  after  the  Idaho  plan.  Prior  to  any  elec- 
tion upon  a  bond  issue  or  contract  with  the  United  States  the  board  is 
3'equired  to  examine  each  tract  and  determine  the  benefits  which  will 
accrue  from  the  construction  or  purchase  of  the  works,  and  the  costs 
i?hall  be  apportioned  over  the  land  in  proportion  to  such  benefits 
and  "  the  amounts  so  apportioned  or  distributed  to  each  of  said  tracts 
or  subdivisions  shall  be  and  remain  the  basis  for  fixing  the  annual 
assessments  levied  against  such  tracts  or  subdivisions  iu  carrving 
out  the  purposes  of  this  act." 

Where  contract  is  made  with  the  United  States  to  provide  for  the 
release  of  liens  to  the  United  States,  the  benefits  are  apportioned 
according  to  the  amount  of  the  obligation  released,  but  if  any  lands 
shall  not  be  released  from  any  lien,  then  the  benefits  shall  be  appor- 
tioned as  they  accrue  in  accordance  with  the  Federal  acts  of  Con- 
gress and  public  notices,  regulations,  and  contracts  between  the  dis- 
trict and  the  United  States. 

Copy  of  a  list  of  apportionment  or  map  showing  the  same  must 
be  filed  in  the  office  of  the  State  engineer,  another  copy  is  retained 
in  the  office  of  the  board,  and  notice  that  the  apportionment  of  bene- 
fits is  open  for  inspection  is  given  by  newspaper  publication  in  the 
county.  Such  apportionment  of  benefits  shall  be  used  also  when 
special  assessments  shall  be  voted  by  the  electors  or  in  the  case  of 
annual  assessments  for  interest,  principal,  or  maintenance  purposes. 
(L.  1917,  269,  270.) 

The  board  of  directors  is  constituted  a  board  of  correction  of  as- 
sessments.    (Eevised  Laws.  sec.  4757.) 

C onfirm.ation. — The  confirmation  proceedings  have  been  broadened 
by  the  legislature  of  this  State  so  that  a  decree  confinning  the  assess- 
ment, list,  apportionment,  and  distribution  above  referred  to  may 
be  rendered  upon  the  usual  procedure.  The  court  is  empowered  to 
correct  errors  in  the  assessment  and  apportionment  and  to  render  a 
final  decree  approving  the  proceedings.     (L.  1917,  270-271.) 


NEVADA  STATUTES.  129 

Reports  and  statements. — Report  to  the  State  engineer  upon  the 
progress  of  the  construction  and  rechunation  work  is  required  to  be 
made  annually  by  the  district  board  (Revised  Laws,  sec.  4742),  and 
a  financial  statement  is  required  to  be  published  annually  showing  all 
liabilities  and  assets  of  the  district.     (Id.  4743.) 

Bonds. — The  board  may  sell  bonds  from  time  to  "time  as  may  be 
necessary,  with  or  without  advertising,  but  may  not  in  any  event  sell 
them  for  less  than  their  i)ar  value  and  accrued  interest.  If  the  bonds 
can  not  be  sold  at  i)ar  the  board  may  cancel  same  and  levy  assessments 
to  the  amount  of  the  bonds  canceled,  the  revenue  derived  from  such 
assessments  to  be  applied  to  the  same  jrurposes  for  which  the  bonds 
were  issued.     (Revised  Laws,  sec.  475-2.) 

In  case  the  money  raised  by  the  sale  of  bonds  be  found  insufficient 
to  complete  the  plans  and  additional  bonds  be  not  voted,  the  board 
shall  provide  foi-  the  completion  of  the  plan  bv  levy  or  assessment 
therefor.     (L.  1917,  268.) 

Levy  and  collection. — An  annual  levy  is  made  by  the  board  of  di- 
rectors in  accordance  with  the  approved  list  and  apportionment  of 
benefits.  (L.  191.5,  442,  443.)  The  secretary  of  the  board  certifies  the 
assessment  to  the  county  auditor,  who  enters  the  same  in  the  tax  rolls 
of  the  count3^  The  county  treasurer  collects  the  taxes  in  the  same 
manner,  under  the  same  penalties  that  other  taxes  are  collected.  (L. 
1915,  443.) 

Delinquent  tax  sale. — Authority  is  given  to  the  treasurer,  in  case 
there  are  no  bidders  for  certain  tracts  at  a  delinquent  sale,  to  buy 
the  same  in  the  name  of  the  district;  and  such  treasurer  shall  take 
certificates  of  sale  or  deeds  as  other  private  buyers  and  subject  to 
the  same  redemption,  fees,  and  other  provisions  of  law  relating 
thereto.  Such  property  is  required  to  be  held,  treated,  and  disposed 
of  in  accordance  with  the  laws  relating  to  similar  cases  in  which 
counties  purchase  property.     (L.  1915,  447.) 

Construction  contracts. — The  usual  provisions  for  advertisement 
and  letting  of  construction  contracts  obtain.  But  no  contract  of  any 
kind  shall  be  let  by  the  board  unless  money  is  on  hand  for  payment 
in  full  for  the  work  or  material  contractecl.  This  does  not  apply  to 
contracts  with  the  United  States.    (L.  1915,  444. ) 

Organization  and  7naintena7ice  expenses. — The  board  may  fix 
charges  for  water  or  levy  assessments  for  organization  and  main- 
tenance purposes,  or  do  both.  All  charges  and  assessments  are  listed 
in  the  regular  assessment  book  and  collected  by  the  treasurer  like 
regular  annual  assessments.  The  board  may  order  tolls  for  water, 
to  be  collected  in  advance.     (Revised  Laws,  47G7.) 

Annexation. — The  provisions  for  changing  the  boundaries  by  wa.y 
of  annexation  permit  the  petition  to  be  signed  by  one-half  or  more  of 
the  owners  of  the  land  proposed  to  be  annexed.  (Revised  Laws,  sec. 
4771.) 

Guardians,  executors,  and  administrators,  when  authorized  by 
court,  may  sign  for  the  lands  they  represent.  The  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  may  sign  a  petition  for  the  annexation  of  lands  to  a  district, 
but  not  for  the  organization  of  a  district.     (L.  1917,  271.) 

Exclusion. — Where  lands  are  excluded,  the  only  ground  recognized 
by  statute  is  that  the  lands  proposed  to  be  excluded  are  too  high  to 

160047—20 9 


130  HAJSTDBOOK   OF  IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

be  watered  or  to  receive  any  benefit  from  the  irrigation  works.  (Sec. 
4782.) 

Same— Consent  of  United  States. — Changes  in  district  boundaries 
where  contract  has  been  made  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  are 
prohibited  unless  the  Secretary  consents  in  writing.     (L.  1915,  444.) 

Consolidation  of  districts. — The  consolidation  provisions  permitting 
union  of  districts  are  referred  to  in  the  general  discussion.  (See 
p.  83.) 

State  lands. — State  lands  within  the  district  are  not  assessable,  but 
the  State  land  register  and  the  State  engineer  make  a  thorough  ex- 
amination as  to  the  benefits  to  accrue  to  State  lands,  and  the  register 
is  empowered  to  contract  with  the  district  specifying  the  legal  sub- 
divisions benefited  and  the  amount  of  benefit  accruing  to  each  tract. 
Such  contracts  shall  provide  for  annual  payments  out  of  the  general 
fund  to  the  district,  to  be  applied  on  the  cost  of  construction  work 
until  the  amount  of  such  benefits  is  fully  paid,  with  the  option  on 
the  part  of  the  State  to  pay  in  full  at  any  time.  The  contract  is  con- 
tingent upon  the  works  being  properly  constructed  and  managed,  so 
that  the  benefits  shall  accrue. 

Provision  is  made  for  crediting  the  State  lands  with  the  amounts 
paid  and  for  procuring  the  reimbursement  of  the  general  fund  when 
the  State  shall  dispose  of  its  lands  within  the  district.  (Rev.  Stat., 
sec.  4787.)  .  _  , 

Dissolution — Division — Exclusion. — Petition  for  dissolution  is 
filed  in  the  district  court  and  must  be  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  land- 
owners owning  at  least  two-thirds  of  the  land.  Before  the  order  can 
be  issued  the  directors  must  show  that  the  district  does  not  owe  any 
money  and  that  there  are  no  outstanding  bonds  or  other  evidence  of 
indebtedness.  Similar  petition  may  be  filed  for  the  division  of  the 
district  or  for  the  exclusion  of  land.  The  assent  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  is  necessary  to  the  division  of  the  district  or  the  exclusion 
of  lands  therefrom  where  contract  has  been  made  with  the  Federal 
Government.     (L.  1915,  446.) 

New  Mexico.^ 

The  New  Mexico  irrigation  district  law  will  be  found  in  the  codi- 
fication of  1915,  sections  2949  to  3004,  inclusive,  as  amended  by  chap- 
ter TOO  of  the  Session  Laws  of  1915,  appendix  to  the  codification, 
pages  143  to  151,  and  as  further  amended  by  the  Session  Laws  of 
1917,  chapter  21,  pages  59  to  83.  Organization  and  the  incurring 
of  indebtedness  are  more  circumscribed  than  in  most  States. 

Organization  petition. — The  organization  petition  must  be  signed 
by  a  majority  of  the  resident  freeholders  owning  or  holding  evidence 
of  title  to  more  than  one-half  of  the  lands  in  any  district.  Resident 
entrymen  upon  public  lands  of  the  United  States  are  deemed  resi- 
dent freeholders  for  the  purposes  of  the  act. 

Purposes. — Organization  is  to  provide  for  the  irrigation  of  dis- 
trict lands  or  for  cooperation  with  the  United  States  for  the  con- 
struction of  works,  including  drainage  works,  necessary  to  maintain 
the  irrigability  of  district  lands,  or  for  cooperation  in  the  operation 

^  See  p.  87  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion.     See  also  changes  resulting 
from  subsequent  enactment  in  1919,  infra,  168. 


NEW  MEXICO   STATUTES.  ISl 

and  maintenance  of  works  already  constructed,  or  for  the  assump- 
tion of  indebtedness  to  the  United  States. 

Incidental  foxoers. — Districts  have  the  followino-  incidental  pow- 
ers: To  take  over  the  assets  and  assume  the  lial)ilities  of  water 
users'  associations  organized  for  cooperation  with  the  United  States 
under  the  Federal  reclamation  act  in  case  a  majority  of  the  lands 
of  the  association  shall  be  within  the  district  and  the  association 
shall  agree  to  the  transfer;  also  to  construct  and  control  plants  for 
the  generation,  distribution,  sale,  and  lease  of  electrical  energ}',  in- 
cluding the  sale  to  municipalities,  corporations,  or  persons  of  the 
energy  generated ;  to  promote  the  agricultural  resources  and  market- 
ing facilities  of  the  district;  and  to  make  appropriation  of  money 
and  take  other  action  necessary  to  effectuate  the  purposes  enumer- 
ated.    (L.  1917,  59.) 

Irrigated  lands  exempt. — ^Where,  however,  ditches  or  reservoirs 
have  been  constructed  prior  to  March  18,  1900,  the  date  of  the 
original  irrigation  district  law,  such  ditches,  reservoirs,  and  fran- 
chises, and  the  lands  irrigated  are  exempt  from  the  operations  of 
the  law,  unless  the  district  be  formed  to  acquire  or  rent  such  ditches, 
reservoirs,  and  their  franchises,  or  unless  a  statement  signed  by  four- 
fifths  of  the  owners  of  the  same  and  the  lands  irrigated  therefrom 
be  filed  with  the  county  connnissioners  (to  Avhom  the  petition  is 
addressed)  of  the  county  in  which  the  system  is  located,  consenting 
that  the  same  be  included. 

Community  ditches. —W^'Ai^v  users  under  communit}'  ditches,  es- 
tablished by  the  Spanish  law,  in  towns  or  villages  in  this  State  are 
not  affected  as  to  their  voting  power  upon  the  question  whether  any 
such  ditch  shall  be  included  in  an  irrigation  district,  and  each  of 
said  water  users  has  the  same  right  and  voice  in  deternuning  such 
question  and  in  the  signing  of  the  statement  provided  for  in  section 
2949  (sec.  1)  as  he  has  in  the  control  and  management  of  such  ditch 
(sec.  2)^. 

Publications. — All  j^ublications  required  by  the  law  must  be  made 
in  English  and  in  Spanish,  and  the  last  publication  shall  be  made  not 
less  than  three  days  before  the  time  fixed  for  the  taking  of  the  action 
therein  mentioned.     (L.  1917,  61.) 

Boundaries — Divisions. — The  duty  of  defining  the  boundaries 
after  the  customary  hearing  and  examination  devolves  upon  the 
county  commissioners.  The  number  of  directors  and  divisions  is 
graduated  according  to  the  irrigable  area,  ranging  from  three  to 
nine.     (L.  1917,  61.) 

Electors  arvd  elections. — All  persons  residing  within  any  county 
in  which  any  portion  of  a  district  shall  lie,  and  who  are  oAvners  of 
land  within  the  district,  or  of  evidence  of  title  to  such  land,  to- 
gether with  resident  entrymen  of  public  lands  within  the  district, 
who  are  qualified  electors  under  the  general  election  laws  of  the 
State,  are  entitled  to  vote.  Registration  of  voters  is  not  required. 
The  general  election  laws  of  the  State,  except  as  otherwise  specified, 
govern  all  elections.  An  election  for  organization,  or  upon  a  bond 
issue,  or  to  create  an  indebtedness  aggregating  25  cents  per  acre  or 
more  upon  district  lands,  can  not  avail  unless  there  shall  be  cast  in 
favor  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  the  resident  freeholders  within  the 
district  representing  a  majority  of  the  acreage  owned  or  held  by 
resident  freeholders.     (L.  1917,  "63.) 


132  HANDBOOK  OF   IRRIGATION  DISTRICT  LAWS. 

As  an  offset  to  this  almost  prohibitive  requirement,  it  is  provided 
that  a  qualified  elector  may  vote  by  mail,  signing  his  ballot  and 
mailing,  delivering  or  causing  it  to  be  delivered  in  a  sealed  envelope 
to  the  secretary  of  the  district.  At  this  point  a  defect  in  the  law 
is  apparent  since  no  district  secretary  will  be  appointed  before  the 
organization  election.  The  ballots  may  be  so  mailed  or  delivered 
at  any  time  after  the  commencement  of  the  publication  of  the  notice 
for  election  up  to  the  time  of  the  closing  of  the  polls.  (L.  1917, 
64.) 

(J ooferation  with  the  United  States. — Cooperation  with  the 
United  States  includes  the  drainage  as  well  as  the  irrigation  of  dis- 
trict lands  and  the  provisions  are  in  substantially  the  customary 
terms.  It  is  provided,  however,  that  no  irrigation  district  formed 
wholly  or  in  part  upon  any  Federal  reclamation  project  partially 
or  wholly  constructed  at  the  time  of  the  approval  of  the  act  of  1917 
(i.  e.,  Mar.  6,  1917)  shall  have  the  power  to  issue  interest-bearing 
bonds  to  be  deposited  with  the  United  States;  and  the  payment, 
prior  to  the  date  when  the  same  shall  become  due,  of  interest  upon 
any  obligation  entered  into  between  any  such  district  and  the  United 
States  is  prohibited.     (L.  1917,  66.) 

Water  sufply  affroved  by  State  engineer. — After  organization 
the  board  is  required  to  emploj-  a  competent  hydraulic  engineer  to 
report  upon  the  water  supply  available  for  the  district  and  to  esti- 
mate the  average  amount  of  water  available  per  year  for  each  acre 
of  land  and  the  probable  amounts  available  for  irrigation  or  storage 
during  each  week.  The  report  must  be  submitted  to  the  State  engi- 
neer for  approval  or  correction  and  if  the  report  can  not  be  so  cor- 
rected as  to  receive  his  approval,  or  if  the  State  engineer  believe 
that  there  is  not  sufficient  water  to  properly  irrigate  the  district 
lands,  he  shall  disapprove  the  report. 

The  right  of  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  State  engineer  to  the 
district  court  is  expressly  granted,  the  court  being  required  to  de- 
termine the  sufficiency  and  accuracy  of  the  report  and  the  water 
supply  available.  Until  the  report  is  approved  by  the  State  engineer 
or  the  courts,  no  bond  issue  can  be  made.  The  functions  of  the 
hydraulic  engineer  and  the  State  engineer  are  dispensed  with  in  the 
case  of  Federal  reclamation  projects.     (L.  1917,  67.) 

Bonds. — The  purposes  for  which  bonds  may  be  issued  include  the 
paying  of  the  first  year's  interest.  The  bonds  run  for  20  years,  pay- 
ments upon  the  principal  beginning  at  the  expiration  of  11  years. 
Tlie  district,  after  the  same  formality  which  governs  the  issues  of 
bonds,  ma;y  ^'ote  that  the  bonds  mature  in  any  number  of  3'ears  less 
than  20,  arranging  for  payment  in  series,  as  above  indicated.  Inter- 
est shall  not  exceed  the  rate  of  6  per  cent  per  annum.     (L.  1917,  93.) 

When  the  proceeds  of  any  previous  issue  of  bonds  has  become  ex- 
hausted by  expenditures  and  it  becomes  necessary  to  obtain  more 
money,  additional  bonds  may  be  issued  after  an  election  as  for  the 
original  issue.  The  customar}-  proviso  is  added  as  to  the  preferred 
character  of  prior  bond  issues  and  prior  contracts  with  the  United 
States.     (L.  1917,  72.) 

The  bonds  and  contract  with  the  United  States  shall  be  paid  by 
revenue  derived  from  an  annual  assessment  upon  realty  in  the  dis- 
trict which  shall  be  and  remain  liable  to  be  assessed  for  such  pay- 
ments as  in  the  act  provided.     (L.  1917,  68.)     District  bonds  may  be 


NEW   MEXICO   STATUTES.  138 

issued  at  par  in  payment  for  any  property  purchased  witliout  pre- 
A'ious  offer  of  the  same  for  hak\ 

Disfrihuf'/oii  of  water. — All  waters  disti-ihuted  are  apportioned 
pro  i-ata  to  the  lands  assessed.  The  board  has  th(-  p(j\ver  to  lease  or 
rent  the  use  of  water,  either  within  or  without  the  district,  at  not 
less  than  one  and  one-half  times  the  district  tax  which  would  be 
])ayal)l('  iindei'  ordinary  assessment.  (L.  1917,  08.) 
•  A\'ater,  the  ri<iht  to  tlie  use  of  which  is  ac(|uired  l»y  ihe  district 
under  conti-act  with  the  Ignited  States,  shall  be  apportioned  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  acts  of  Con<>ress  and  the  rules  and  regulations  of 
the  SfH,-retarv  and  the  pi-ovisions  of  the  district  contract.  (L.  1917, 
09.) 

Judicial  notice. — Provision  is  made  that  judicial  notice  be  taken 
of  the  existence  of  the  district  and  ])rima  facie  evidence  of  its  re<ru- 
lar  status  becomes  conclusive  unless  quo  warranto  ])i<)ceedin<>s  are 
instituted  within  a  year.     (Stat.,  1915,  sec.  29()?). ) 

Exemption  from  taxation. — Property  acquired  In  the  ii-rigation 
district  is  exempted  from  all  taxation.     (L.  1917,  70.) 

iJetevminat'wn  of  amount  of  assessments. — The  board  must  de- 
termine annually  the  amount  of  money  required  to  meet  the  oblifja- 
tions,  maintenance,  and  operating  and  current  expenses,  and  certify 
the  same  to  the  county  commissioners  of  the  county  in  which  the  dis- 
trict office  is  located.  It  must  also  certify  the  amounts,  if  an}^,  which 
will  become  due  to  the  United  States  during  the  ensuing  year.  Provi- 
sion is  made  for  the  omission  of  assessments  where  lands  are  in  a 
Federal  reclamation  project  and  the  district  has  contracted  Avith  the 
United  States  as  regards  any  unit  not  upon  a  repayment  basis  and 
project  lands  for  which  rental  charges  for  such  year  are  not  required, 
and  as  regards  lands  exempted  from  repayment  on  account  of  seepage 
and  other  conditions  where  the  district  is  exempted  from  payment  to 
the  United  States.     (L.  1917,  74.) 

Public  lands  of  the  United  States  are  taxed  subject  to  the  act  of 
August  11,  1916.     (L.  1917,  73.) 

Assessments. — The  county  assessor  is  required  to  enter  upon  his  tax 
roll  the  owners  and  lands  subject  to  taxation  under  the  act  and  to 
deliver  certified  list  to  the  county  commissioners.  After  receiving 
notice  from  the  county  commissioners  of  the  levies  to  be  made,  the 
assessor  must  extend  the  same  upon  his  tax  roll  to  be  collected  like 
other  taxes.  No  land  shall  be  taxed  which,  from  any  natural  cause, 
can  not  be  irrigated  by  the  district  system  or  is  incapable  of  cultiva- 
tion.    (Stat.  1915,  sec.  2968.) 

The  county  commissioners  immediately  upon  receiving  the  certified 
list  of  the  lands  in  the  district  subject  to  taxation  and  upon  the  re- 
ceipt of  the  certificate  from  the  directors  certifying  the  total  amount 
of  money  to  be  raised,  must  fix  the  rate  per  acre  of  levy  necessary  to 
provide  the  amount  of  money  requii-ed  to  pay  the  interest  on  the 
bonds,  and  to  provide  the  money  recjuired  lo  be  raised  by  levy  for 
other  purposes.  They  must  also  certify  the  respective  levies  to  the 
county  commissioners  of  each  county  in  which  any  portion  of  the  dis- 
trict lies.  The  rate  of  levy  necessary  to  raise  the  required  amount  of 
money  must  be  increased  15  per  cent  to  cover  deliniiuencies.  The 
county  commissioners  make  such  levy  at  the  time  of  making  the  levy 
for  county  purposes  and  deliver  a  notice  thereof  to  the  county  as- 
sessor; and  in  case  of  contract  with  the  United  States,  lev}"  shall  be 


l.'M  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATIOlSr   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

made  in  the  amounts  and  on  the  tracts  as  certified  by  the  board  of 
directors  and  as  confirmed  judicially.  All  L'lxes  levied  under  the  act 
are  special  taxes.     (L.  1917,  75.) 

Drainage  assessments. — If  a  district  contract  with  the  United 
States  for  the  construction  of  drainage  works,  the  board  of  directors 
must  fix  and  determine,  subject  to  judicial  confirmation,  the  rate  or 
percentage  of  the  benefits  from  the  j^ropsed  works  for  all  real  prop- 
erty within  the  district  to  be  affected  thereby.  The  board  must  also 
assess  the  damages  inflicted  upon  any  real  property,  such  amount 
being  deducted  from  the  assessments  payable  by  each  owner  of  lands 
damaged  until  compensation  sliall  have  been  fully  made.  If  the  dam- 
age exceed  the  benefits  as  regards  anv  property,  a  cash  award  must 
be  made.  The  rate  of  benefits  shall  be  subsequently  used  as  the 
basis  for  annual  assessment,  but  may  be  changed  from  time  to  time 
by  the  board  as  new  or  changing  conditions  may  in  their  judgment 
require,  subject  to  judicial  confirmation.  An  irrigation  district  may 
assess  realty  within  its  boundaries  owned  by  all  classes  of  persons 
and  corporations  for  drainage  costs  to  the  same  extent  as  drainage 
districts  are  empowered  to  do.     (L.  1917,  73.) 

Collections  and  dishuo^sements. — The  county  treasurer  of  the  county 
in  which  is  located  the  office  of  any  district  is  ex  officio  district  treas- 
urer and  the  county  treasurer  of  each  county  is  required  to  collect 
all  irrigation  district  taxes  for  district  lands  in  such  county  in  the 
same  manner  and  at  the  same  time  as  he  is  required  to  collect  the 
taxes  for  county  purposes.  The  funds  arising  from  assessment  and 
levy  and  accruing  to  the  bond  and  United  States  contract  fund,  must 
be  devoted  to  the  obligations  of  the  district  and  paid  from  said  fund 
"  in  the  order  of  the  prioritv  of  the  creation  of  the  obligation." 
(L.  1917,76.) 

Generally  speaking,  the  revenue  laws  of  the  State  for  the  assess- 
ment levy  and  collection  of  taxes  on  real  estate  for  county  purposes, 
including  the  enforcement  of  penalties  and  forfeitures  for  delin- 
quencies, apply  to  irrigation  districts.  (Stat.  1915,  sec.  2971.) 
"  Geneixil  ex'penses. — To  defray  miscellaneous  expenses,  the  board 
may  fix  tolls  and  charges  for  use  of  canal  and  water  or  it  ma}'  levy 
assessments  therefor,  or  both.     (L.  1917,  77.) 

Eminent  domain. — The  board  may  construct  works  across  any 
watercourse,  highway,  etc.,  to  which  end  it  may  exercise  the  right 
of  eminent  domain.  Right  of  way  for  such  purpose  is  granted  over 
any  State  lands.     (Stat.  1915,  sec' 2975.) 

Change  of  houndaries. — Petition  for  annexation  can  only  be  made 
on  the  part  of  all  owners  of  the  lands  proposed  to  be  included  (Stat. 
1915,  sec.  2981),  the  proceedings  being  of  the  usual  type.  The  change 
of  boundaries  must  receive  the  assent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
if  contract  has  been  made  with  the  United  States.     (L.  1915,  150.) 

Exclusion  of  lands  is  provided  for  with  the  usual  clause  prohibit- 
ing the  impairment  or  discharge  of  any  contract.  (Stat.  1915,  sec. 
2990.)  The  authority  of  the  board  as  regards  exclusion  is  conditional 
upon  there  being  no  outstanding  bonds  of  the  district.  When  con- 
tract has  been  made  with  the  United  States  the  assent  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior  is  required.     (L.  1915,  150.) 

Dissolution. — A  majority  of  the  resident  freeholders  representing 
a  majority  of  the  number  of  acres  of  irrigable  land  may  petition  the 
board  of  directors  for  the  dissolution  of  the  district.    The  petition 


XOP.TH   DAKOTA   STATUTES.  135 

must  state  that  all  bills  and  claims  have  been  fully  settled  and  the 
board  must  be  satisfied  that  such  is  the  case.     (Stat.  1915,  sec.  2997.) 

A  majority  of  the  votes  cast  is  sufficient  for  dissolution,  but  if  con- 
tract has  been  made  with  the  United  States  the  ^v^itten  assent  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  required.     (L.  1915,  151.) 

Conf.rmntlon. — The  brino;in^  of  confirnuition  ])roceedings  is  ob- 
ligatory u])on  the  board  of  directors.  The  provisions  extend  not  only 
to  the  authorization  of  bonds  and  of  contract  with  the  United  States, 
but  also  to  the  ascertainment  of  the  rate  or  percentage  of  drainage 
benefits  and  of  the  award  for  damages  iuflicted  l)y  drainage  works 
where  contract  has  Ix^en  made  with  the  United  States.  The  assess- 
ment and  award  in  such  cases  are  covered  by  decree.  Moreover,  in- 
clusion and  exclusion  proceedings  in  the  discretion  of  the  board  inay 
be  confirmed  in  the  same  manner,     (L.  1917,  80.) 

The  confirmation  proceedings  in  other  respects  are  of  the  u^ual 

type. 

Districts  organized  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1917  are  con- 
firmed and  are  rendered  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  act  in  the 
future  so  far  as  applicable,  but  vested  rights  are  specifically  pro- 
tected.    fL.  1917,  83.) 

North  Dakota.^ 

North  Dakota  had  no  irrigation  district  law  until  1917.  when  an 
act  was  passed,  being  chapter  115,  approved  March  8,  1917.  (L. 
1917.  125.) 

Petition  for  organization. — In  North  Dakota  the  petition  for  or- 
ganization addressed  to  the  board  of  county  commissioners  must  be 
signed  by  a  majority  of  the  electors  of  the  district  representing  '•  a 
majority  of  the  whole  number  of  acres  owned  or  held  by  electors  of 
the  proposed  district."  Electors  include  residents  of  the  State  hold- 
ing not  less  than  10  acres  within  the  district  and  entrymen  upon 
public  lands  therein  or  holders  of  leases  to  the  extent  of  40  acres  of 
State  land  with  not  less  than  five  years  still  to  run.  The  purposes  of 
organization  as  set  forth  do  not  expressly  include  the  formation  of 
districts,  where  provision  for  irrigation  has  already  been  made,  in 
order  to  provide  a  vehicle  for  operation  and  maintenance.  A  major- 
ity of  the  votes  cast  determines  the  organization  election.  (Sees.  1 
and  2.) 

La/nds  exerrifted. — It  is  provided  where  ditches  have  been  con- 
structed prior  to  the  act  sufficient  to  water  the  lands  under  the  dis- 
trict, that  such  ditches  and  the  franchises  and  the  lands  thereunder 
shall  be  exempt  from  the  operation  of  the  law,  except  such  district 
shall  be  formed  to  make  purchase  of  such  ditches  and  franchises. 
(Sec.  1.) 

Refort  of  State  engineer. — Four  weeks  before  the  date  of  hearing 
before  the  county  board  the  petition,  maps,  etc.,  must  be  filed  with 
the  State  engineer,  whose  duty  it  is  to  examine  the  same,  and  if 
necessary,  to  examine  the  district  and  its  proposed  works,  and  report 
the  matter  to  the  county  board. 

Boundaries  and  suhdivisio?is. — The  count}^  commissioners  define 
the  boundaries,  making  no  changes  to  exempt  irrigable  lands,  but 

^  See  p.  87  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion. 


136  HANDBOOK    OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

shall  include  no  land  in  the  district  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
board,  will  not  be  benefited.  The  district  is  dividecl  into  three,  five, 
or  seven  divisions,  as  may  be  deemed  best,  with  a  director  from  each. 
(Sec.  2.) 

Release  of  Icmds  when  no  longer  heneflted. — Water  rights  are  ap- 
purtenant to  the  land,  but  if  any  tract  to  which  water  right  has 
attached  shall  become  subirrigated  so  that  water  is  no  longer  bene- 
ficial, the  owner  or  entryman  may  apply  to  the  board  to  relieve  such 
land  from  assessment,  releasing  his  water  right  until  drainage  has 
been  supplied  and  water  may  beneficially  be  used.  Application  may 
be  made  for  transfer  of  such  water  right  to  other  lands  within  the 
district  or  for  the  inclusion  of  the  land  to  be  irrigated  and  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  subirrigated  area,     (Sec.  9.) 

Plans  submitted  to  State  engineer.— 'W\\q\\  the  plan  for  irrigation 
has  been  formulated,  the  board  is  required  to  submit  the  same  to  the 
State  engineer,  who  shall  report  to  the  board  such  matters  as  he 
may  desire.     (Sec,  13.) 

Bonds. — Bonds  are  payable  over  the  period  from  the  expiration  of 
the  eleventh  year  to  the  expiration  of  the  twentieth  year,  but  the  dis- 
trict by  a  majority  vote  may  provide  for  a  lesser  period,  and  may 
similarly  provide  for  the  payment  of  interest  not  exceeding  6  per 
cent  on  due  and  unpaid  interest  coupons  attached  to  outstanding 
bonds.     (Sec.  13.) 

Bonds  may  be  sold  for  not  less  than  95  per  cent  of  the  face  value 
thereof.     (Sec.  14.)  ^ 

Assessment. — Separate  district  assessor  and  treasurer  are  provided 
for.  (Sec.  4,)  The  assessor  is  required  to  determine  the  benefits 
which  will  accrue  to  each  tract  on  account  of  the  construction  or 
acquisition  of  the  irrigation  works.  (Sec.  16.)  The  board  of  direc- 
tors acts  as  a  board  of  equalization  (sec,  17),  and  the  apportion- 
ment thus  reached  "  shall  be  and  remain  the  basis  for  fixing  the 
annual  assessments  levied  against  such  tracts."  The  list  of  appor- 
tionment, with  the  amount  and  rate  per  acre,  is  prepared  by  the 
assessor,  or  a  map  showing  the  rate  may  be  prepared.  The  whole 
amount  of  the  assessment  of  benefits  must  equal  the  amount  of  the 
bonds  or  other  obligations  voted.     (Sec.  16,) 

Levy  and  collection. — The  levy  is  made  by  the  board  and  the 
county  auditor  enters  the  amount  of  each  fund  in  separate  columns 
on  the  tax  list  of  his  county.  If  the  board  neglect  to  cause  levy 
and  assessment  to  be,  made  the  assessment  for  the  preceding  year 
must  be  adopted.  Tax  lists  when  delivered  to  the  county  treasurer 
contain  all  taxes  in  each  fund  levied  on  each  tract  by  the  board.  The 
county  treasurer  is  required  to  collect  assessments  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  other  taxes  ag:ainst  real  estate  are  collected,  the  revenue  laws 
for  collection  and  sale  of  land  for  taxes  being  made  applicable. 
(Sec,  21,)  Taxes  are  paid  by  the  county  treasurer  to  the  treasurer 
of  the  district.  (Sec,  19.)  The  board  has  the  power  to  make  an 
additional  levy  not  to  exceed  $1  an  acre  to  create  a  special  fund 
for  the  payment  of  overdue  obligations  of  prior  years  for  operation, 
maintenance,  and  current  expense,     (Sec,  21,) 

Warrants.- — Warrants  in  excess  of  90  per  cent  of  the  levy  for  the 
year  are  prohibited,     (Sec,  20.) 

Prioyity  of  obligations. — The  lien  for  payments  due  to  the  United 
States  where  bonds  have  not  been  deposited  are  a  preferred  lien  to 


NORTH  DAKOTA  STATUTES.  137 

that  of  any  other  issue  of  bonds  subsequent  to  the  date  of  contract. 
Funds  arising  from  assessment  and  levy  are  devoted  to  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  district  ]iayable  from  said  funds  in  tlie  order  of  the 
priorit}^  of  the  creation  of  the  obligation.      (Sec.  21.) 

Refund  vjhen  lands  not  h(  ncfted. — Payments  made  under  protest 
are  refundable  where  the  lands  assessed  could  not  for  the  time  being 
be  benefited  l)v  irrigation  oti  nccount  of  subirrigation.      (Sec.  22.) 

Coniirinatlun. — The  confirmation  proceedings  in  this  State  are 
obligatory  before  the  issuance  and  sale  of  bonds.     (Sec.  59.) 

Registration. — After  the  court  shall  have  determined  the  validity 
of  the  organization  the  directors  are  required  to  prepaie  a  state- 
ment showing  all  j)roceedings  from  the  petition  for  organization  of 
the  district  to  decree  of  court,  present  the  same  with  the  bonds  cer- 
tified by  them  under  oath  to  the  State  engineer.  The  latter  official 
shall  examine  the  statement  and  the  bonds,  and  if  satisfied  that  the 
same  conform  with  the  law  and  are  in  due  form,  he  shall  rec-ord  the 
statement  and  register  the  bonds  in  his  office.  No  bonds  shall  be 
issued  or  valid  unless  registered  and  endorsed  by  the  State  engineer 
showing  compliance  with  the  law.  The  provision  is  optional  as  to 
bonds  heretofore  issued  or  being  issued  when  the  act  went  into  effect. 
(Sec.  63.) 

Special  assessments. — Provision  is  made  for  special  assessments 
after  a  majority  vote  of  the  district.  15  per  cent  being  added  to  the 
rate  of  assessment  for  anticipated  delinquencies.     (Sec.  30.) 

Drainage. — The  usual  prohibition  is  made  against  unauthorized 
debts  Avith  the  added  proviso  that  the  district  "  shall  have  the  power 
to  and  it  shall  be  its  duty  to  provide  for  the  proper  drainage  of  any 
and  all  lands  embraced  within  its  limits  which  are  or  have  been 
subirrigated  by  reason  of  the  lawful  use  of  water  from  its  canal  by 
the  owner  or  lessee  of  the  lands  subirrigated  or  from  any  cause  not 
the  fault,  or  by  the  consent  of  such  owner  or  lessee."  For  such 
drainage  purposes  the  power  is  given  the  district  to  levy  special 
assessments  or  otherwise  provide  funds  necessary  properly  to  drain 
such  lands.  The  pow'cr  to  contract  with  the  United  States  for 
drainage  purposes  is  also  expressly  given.    (Sec.  31.) 

Contract  and  Gooferation  with  tlie  United-  States. — Districts  are 
expressl}^  authorized  to  contract  with  the  United  States  for  irrigation 
or  drainage  purposes  wdiereby  the  bonds  of  the  district  would  be 
guaranteed  by  the  United  States  or  financial  credit  extended  by  the 
Federal  Government  to  the  district  (N.  B. — Federal  bills  for  the 
foregoing  purpose  failed  of  enactment) ,  and  also  for  the  sale,  pur- 
chase, or  use  of  irrigation  or  drainage  works  or  other  property  owned 
or  to  be  acquired  for  the  use  of  the  district.     (Sec.  OS.) 

The  usual  provisions  relative  to  cooperation  with  the  United 
States  expressly  extend  to  drainage.     (Sec.  69.) 

Liahility  for  negl/gence. — Irrigation  districts  are  liable  in  dam- 
ages for  negligence  or  failure  in  delivering  water  to  the  users  from 
the  district  canal  in  like  manner  as  private  persons  and  corporations. 
A  prerequisite,  however,  is  that  the  party  aggrieved  shall  within 
30  days  after  such  failure  serve  notice  in  writing  u]ion  the  chairman 
of  the  board,  setting  forth  the  acts  constituting  the  negligence  or 
omission  and  stating  that  he  expects  to  hold  the  district  liable; 
and  provided  further  that  action  shall  be  brought  within  a  year 
from  the  accrual  of  the  cause.     (Sec.  75.) 


138  HANDBOOK   OF   lEKIGATIOlSr   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

Changes  of  houndaries. — The  procedure  for  including  additional 
lands  is  in  a  general  way  similar  to  that  of  most  of  the  other  States. 
The  exclusion  proceedings  provide  that  unless  the  holders  of  out- 
standing bonds  or  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  if  contract  with  the 
United  States  shall  have  been  made,  assent  to  the  change  of  bounda- 
ries, the  board  shall  deny  and  dismiss  any  petition  for  the  exclusion 
of  land.     (Sec.  52.) 

Dissolution. — Dissolution  of  districts  can  be  initiated  only  by  a 
majority  of  the  assessment  payers  representing  a  majority  of  the  irri- 
gable acreage.  Petition  is  presented  to  the  board  of  directors.  If 
upon  the  winding  up  of  affairs  the  money  realized  from  the  sale  is 
insufficient  for  the  payment  of  all  debts  of  the  district,  assessments 
shall  continue  to  be  made  under  the  law  relating  to  bonded  and  other 
indebtedness  "  until  a  sufficient  amount  is  raised  to  fully  pay  all  obli- 
gations of  such  district." 

Where  contract  shall  have  been  made  with  the  United  States  the 
board  of  directors  is  without  power  to  take  any  action  looking  toward 
dissolution  of  the  district  unless  written  consent  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  shall  have  been  filed  with  the  board  and  a  certified  copy 
filed  in  each  county  wherein  district  lands  are  situate.     (Sec.  70.) 

Oklahoma.^ 

Oklahoma  passed  an  irrigation  district  law  first  in  1915,  which 
is  to  be  found  as  chapter  226,  Session  Laws  of  1915,  485  to  538. 

Organization. — Petition  for  organization  is  addressed  to  the  county 
board,  to  be  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  electors  of  the  district  repre- 
senting a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  acres  belonging  to  the 
electors  of  the  district.  Electors  must  be  residents  of  the  State, 
owning  not  less  than  10  acres  or  holding  leaseholds  in  not  less  than 
40  acres  of  State  land  within  said  district  for  not  less  than  five  years 
from  the  date  of  any  given  exercise  of  the  elective  rights.  Corpora- 
tions, however,  may  act  through  duly  authorized  agents.  Organiza- 
tion is  on  the  part  of  those  desiring  to  provide  for  irrigation.  Ditches 
constructed  before  the  passage  of  the  act  of  sufficient  capacity  to 
water  the  lands  thereunder  for  which  the  water  was  appropriated, 
are  expressly  exempted  from  the  law  unless  the  district  shall  be 
formed  to  purchase  such  ditches  and  franchises,  with  the  provision 
that  the  law  shall  not  be  construed  in  any  way  to  affect  the  rights 
of  such  prior  ditch  owners.     (Sees.  1  and  2.) 

After  due  investigation  and  the  formulation  of  plans  copies  of  the 
petition  and  all  maps  are  required  to  be  filed  with  the  State  Board  of 
Irrigation,  it  being  the  duty  of  the  secretary  of  the  board  to  examine 
the  same,  and,  if  advisable,  the  proposed  district  and  works.  He 
must  also  prepare  a  report  to  the  county  board  at  the  hearing  upon 
the  petition.  The  board  may  thereupon  amend  the  plan  of  irriga- 
tion as  deemed  best.     (Sec.  2.) 

A  majority  only  of  the  votes  cast  on  the  organization  election  is 
necessar\^  for  organization.     (Sec.  3.) 

Distrihution  of  vafer. — All  waters  distributed  for  irrigation  pur- 
poses are  apportioned  ratably  to  each  landowner  upon  the  ratio 

^  S'ee  p.  87  for  tbe  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion. 


OKLAHOMA  STATUTES.  139 

which  the  last  assessment  of  such  owner  for  district  purposes  within 
said  district  bears  to  the  total  sum  assessed  upon  the  district.     (Sec.  9.) 

Water  acquired  under  contract  with  the  United  States,  however, 
is  apportioned  in  accordance  with  the  acts  of  Congress,  rules  and 
regulations  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  the  provisions  of 
contract  with  the  United  States.'     (Sec.  9.) 

Puhliclfy. — Exceptional  recjuiremcnts  for  publicity  as  to  the  ac- 
tivities of  the  board  are  laid  down,  all  meetings  being  required  to 
be  advertised,  and  records  of  the  board  must  be  published  at  the 
close  of  each  regular  or  special  meeting.     (Sec.  10.) 

Construction  work. — The  plans  for  construction  work  must  be 
submitted  in  detail  to  the  State  board  of  irrigation,  highways,  and 
drainage  prior  to  the  holding  of  an  election  upon  a  bond  issue.  The 
board  is  required  to  report  upon  the  same,  whereupon  the  district 
directors  determine  the  amount  of  money  to  be  raised  and  the  ques- 
tion whether  or  not  bonds  shall  be  issued  to  an  amount  which  must 
not  exceed  the  actual  estimated  cost  of  the  ditches,  the  aggregate 
jDurchase  price  of  the  property,  together  with  one  year's  interest 
upon  the  bonds.  Upon  the  election  a  mere  majority  of  those  voting 
is  sufficient.  The  board  is  required  at  least  annually  to  report  to 
the  secretary  of  the  State  board  of  irrigation  the  condition  of  the 
work  and  the  success  of  the  plans  and  whether  or  not  the  available 
funds  will  suffice  for  completion.  The  secretary  of  the  State  board 
shall  make  such  recommendations  to  the  directors  as  he  may  deem 
advisable.     (Sec.  13.) 

Bonds. — The  bonds  run  for  20  years,  installment's  upon  the  prin- 
cipal beginning  at  the  expiration  of  the  eleventh  year,  but  by  a  ma- 
jority vote  bonds  may  be  authorized  maturing  in  less  than  20  years 
and  a  majority  vote  may  also  authorize  the  payment  of  interest  not 
to  exceed  6  per  cent  on  any  due  and  unpaid  interest  coupons  attached 
to  valid  outstanding  bonds.     (Sec.  13.) 

Such  bonds  and  the  interest  shall  be  paid  by  revenue  derived  from 
an  annual  assessment  on  the  real  property  of  the  district,  which 
"  shall  be  and  remain  liable  to  be  assessed  for  such  payments  as 
herein  provided,  and  all  payments  due  or  to  become  due  to  the 
United  States."     (Sec.  15.) 

■  Assessor  and  treasurer. — The  district  has  its  corporate  district  as- 
sessor and  treasurer.  (Sec.  b.)  The  assessor  must  assess  all  real 
property  of  the  district  at  its  full  cash  value  less  the  value  of  all  im- 
provements, also  leasehold  estates  in  all  leased  State  lands  less  the  im- 
provement upon  the  same,  including  all  city  and  town  property  in 
the  district.     (Sec.  16.) 

The  assessment  book  must  be  delivered  to  the  secretary  of  the 
board  of  directors.     (Sec.  17.) 

The  district  taxes  are  collected  by  the  county  and  township  treas- 
urers as  public  taxes  are  collected.  Such  treasurers  pay  the  same 
over  to  the  treasurer  of  the  irrigation  district.     (Sec.  19.) 

Equalization  and  levy. — After  receipt  of  the  assessment  book  from 
the  district  assessor  and  following  equalization,  the  board  must  levy 
an  assessment  sufficient  to  raise  principal  and  interest  on  the  bonds, 
payments  due  to  the  United  States,  and,  if  necessary,  for  the  care  and 
maintenance  of  the  irrigation  works.  The  amount  of  taxes  in  each 
fund  levied  upon  each  tract  is  certified  to  the  county  clerk  of  the 


140  HANDBOOK   OF   IREIGATION   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

county  in  which  the  hind  lies  and  the  clerk  enters  the  same  on  the 
tax  lists  of  the  county. 

If  the  board  neglect  to  make  the  assessmeixt  for  district  purposes, 
the  assessment  made  for  county  purposes  as  adjusted  by  the.  county 
equalization  board  becomes  the  basis  for  the  district  taxes  and  the 
county  board  is  required  to  cause  an-  assessment  roll  of  the  district  to 
be  prepared.     (Sees.  17  and  19.) 

Wa/'junts. — No  district  may  issue  warrants  in  excess  of  90  per  cent 
of  the  levy  for  the  year,  but  if  there  are  obligations  against  the  dis- 
trict previously  contracted,  the  board  may  make  an  additional  levy 
not  to  exceed  2  mills  on  the  dollar  of  the  assessed  valuation  to  create 
a  special  fund  for  the  payment  of  past  due  obligations.     (Sec.  20.) 

Tax  sales. — Provision  is  made  for  the  sale  of  leasehold  estates  upon 
State  lands  for  taxes  in  the  same  manner  as  land.     (Sec.  21.) 

Refund  tchere  laiulfi  not  hene-fited. — Provision  is  made  for  the 
directors  to  pass  upon  the  disposal  of  moneys  paid  under  protest  to 
the  county  treasurer  and  a  refund  may  be  ordered  where  the  lands 
could  not  be  benefited  by  irrigation  either  on  account  of  subirrigation 
or  nonirrigability.     (Sec.  22.) 

Construction  and  other  expenses. — Construction  work  is  paid  for 
out  of  the  construction  fund  or  the  bonds  of  the  district  may  be  used 
at  their  par  value,  after  they  have  been  advertised  for  sale  and  no 
bids  received  therefor  at  95  per  cent  or  upward  of  their  face  value. 
If  the  construction  fund  i-esulting  from  the  sale  of  bonds  be  insuffi- 
cient, annual  assessment  and  levy  may  be  resorted  to.  For  expenses 
of  organization,  operation,  maintenance,  and  improvement  the  board 
may  either  fix  tolls  and  charges  for  the  use  of  water  or  may  impose 
anniuil  assessments  or  both. 

P(yU)^r  to  'borrow  racmey. — Additional  funds  may  be  borrowed  for 
unforeseen  operation  and  maintenance  expenses  not  to  exceed  50  cents 
per  acre  upon  the  land.     (Sec.  26.) 

Excess  liifbllities. — The  officers  of  the  district  are  prohibited  from 
incurring  any  liability  in  excess  of  the  express  provisions  of  the 
law,  any  such  liability  being  declared  void. 

Drain-age. — It  is  provided  in  the  clause  prohibiting  excess  liability, 
however,  that  the  district  is  empowered  and  "  it  shall  be  its  duty  to 
provide  for  the  proper  drainage  of  any  and  all  lands  embraced 
within  its  limits  which  are  or  have  been  subirrigated  by  reason  of 
the  law^ful  use  of  water  from  its  canal  by  the  owner  or  lessee  of  the 
lands  subirrigated  or  from  any  cause  not  the  fault  or  by  the  consent 
of  such  owner  or  lessee."  For  drainage  the  district  has  the  same 
poAver  of  assessment  and  levy  or  otherwise  for  providing  the  funds 
necessary  for  drainage  together  with  the  right  to  contract  therefor 
with  the  United  States.     (Sec.  27.) 

Special  assessments. — The  board  may  call  an  election  upon  a  spe- 
cial assessment  for  the  raising  of  money  for  the  purposes  of  the  act. 
The  rate  of  assessment  is  reached  by  deducting  15  per  cent  from  the 
aggregate  assessed  value  of  the  district  property  for  anticipated  de- 
linquencies.    (Sec.  30.) 

Inclusion  and  exchisiov. — Where  lands  are  to  be  included  in  the 
district  petition  can  be  made  by  owners  repi'esenting  one-half  or 
more  of  the  land  to  be  included.     (Sec.  35.) 


OKLAHOMA   STATUTES.  141 

Owners  desirino-  to  be  excluded  may  sign  a  petition  therefor  ad- 
dressed to  the  district  hoard  but  the  assent  of  holders  of  outstanding 
bonds  or  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  if  contract  be  made  with  the 
United  States,  nuist  be  filed,  otherwise  the  board  is  required  to  dis- 
miss the  petition  for  exclusion,  (Sec.  51.)  If  such  assent  be  filed,  a 
majority  vote  upon  the  election  will  suffice.     (Sec.  53.) 

Changes  of  boundaries  nnist  not  iuipair  any  contract,  ol^ligation, 
lien,  or  charge  for  which  any  land  to  be  excluded  would  otherwise 
have  been  liable  (sec.  34),  and  where  contract  has  been  made  with 
the  United  States  the  assent  of  the  secretary  is  required  (sec.  41). 

If  any  tract  shall  become  subirrigated  so  that  water  no  longer  is 
of  benefit  for  irrigation  purposes,  the  owner  may  apply  to  the  dis- 
trict board  to  exclude  such  lands  from  the  district,  releasing  all 
claim  for  a  water  right.  He  may  apply  for  a  permit  to  transfer  the 
water  right  to  any  other  land  upon  which  the  same  may  be  profitably 
applied  and  to  have  such  new  tract  included  within  the  district. 
(Sec.  9.) 

Confirmation. — The  confirmation  proceedings  in  Oklahoma  are 
obligatory  before  the  issuance  of  any  bonds. 

The  act  of  March  23,  1917  (chs.  179,  337)  has  made  special  pro- 
vision for  confirmation  proceedings.  The  board  of  directors  in  their 
discretion  before  making  any  contract  with  the  United  States  or 
with  others  or  the  levying  of  any  assessment  or  the  taking  of  any 
particular  steps  or  action  must  commence  a  special  proceeding  in  the 
district  court  whereby  the  proceedings  of  the  board  thereunto  and 
the  validity  of  any  of  the  terms  of  any  contract  shall  be  judicially 
examined,  approved,  and  confirmed.  The  procedure  follows  as  near 
as  may  be  the  procedure  for  the  confirmation  of  an  issue  of  bonds. 

Registration  of  hounds. — After  decree  in  confirmation  the  board  is 
required  to  prepare  a  written  statement  reciting  the  entire  proceed- 
ings of  the  district  including  confirmation  decree  and  to  present  the 
same  verified  by  oath  of  the  board  with  the  bonds  to  the  auditor  of 
public  accounts.  The  auditor  shall  then  examine  the  statement  and 
the  bonds  and  if  satisfied  shall  record  the  statement  and  register  the 
bonds  in  his  office.  No  bonds  in  Oklahoma  are  valid  unless  so 
registered.  The  board  of  educational  lands  may  invest  such  portion 
of  the  perpetual  school  funds  of  the  State  as  may  in  the  judgment 
of  the  board  be  deemed  expedient  in  irrigation  bonds  so  registered. 
The  registration  provisions,  however,  are  optional  as  to  bonds  pre- 
viouslv  issued  or  in  process  of  being  issued  when  the  act  was  passed. 
(Sec.  62.)  _ 

Refunding  honds. — The  board  may  issue  refunding  bonds  for  no 
greater  principal  amount  and  to  bear  no  greater  rate  of  interest  than 
the  previous  issue.  Notice,  however,  must  be  given  and  hearing 
held  prior  to  action.     (Sees.  65  to  68.) 

Liability  for  rtegligence. — Districts  are  liable  in  damage  for 
negligence  in  delivering  Avater  from  their  canals  in  the  same  manner 
as  persons  and  private  corporations.     (Sec.  69.) 

Dissolutiwv. — The  provisions  governing  dissolution  are  practically 
identical  with  those  of  Nebraska,  heretofore  outlined.     (Sec.  64.) 


142  haistdbook  of  leeigation  district  laws. 

Oregon,^ 

The  Oregon  legislature  in  1917  passed  an  irrigation  district  law 
(Gen.  L,  1917,  743)  as  a  complete  substitute  for  earlier  legislation. 

Petition  for  organization  and  ohjects. — Irrigation  districts  are  in- 
itiated by  petition  to  the  county  court,  signed  by  50  or  a  majority 
of  the  owners  of  land  within  the  propased  district.  (Sec.  1.)  The 
objects  of  organization  include  not  only  the  construction  of  new 
works,  but  also  the  improvement  or  the  operation  merely  of  existing 
systems.  (Sec.  1.)  It  is  the  duty  of  the  county  court  to  fix  the 
boundaries  of  the  district.  The  court  is  not  expressly  required,  how- 
ever, to  ascertain  or  make  findings  upon  the  public  necessity  of  the 
organization  or  the  proposed  works  nor  upon  the  benefit  to  the  lands 
to  be  included  and  taxed.     (Sec.  2.) 

Qualifications  of  electors. — Male  and  female  persons  over  21, 
whether  residents  of  the  State  or  not,  owning  1  acre  or  more  within 
the  district  according  to  the  last  assessment  roll,  or  having  contract 
to  purchase  State  or  Carey  Act  lands,  and  entrymen  on  the  public  do- 
main of  the  United  States,  are  landowners  under  the  act,  having  the 
right  to  vote  or  hold  office.  Corporations  and  fiduciaries  can  also 
exercise  the  franchise.     (Sec.  29.) 

Officers. — The  officers  of  the  district  are  a  board  of  directors,  con- 
sisting of  three  members,  a  president  selected  from  their  member- 
ship, and  a  secretary  appointed  by  them.  The  county  treasurer  of 
the  countv  shall  be  ex  officio  treasurer  of  the  district. 

Construction  flans. — Before  work  is  undertaken  the  construction 
plans  must  be  submitted  to  -the  State  engineer  with  a  report  upon 
the  feasibility  and  cost  of  the  work.  The  State  engineer  must  ap- 
prove or  disapprove  the  plans  Avithin  90  days,  having  authority 
to  make  such  field  investigations  as  may  be  necessary.  (Sec.  15.) 
The  construction  work  must  be  supervised  by  an  irrigation  engi- 
neer, subject  to  the  approval  when  completed  of  the  State  engi- 
neer. Construction  under  contract  with  the  United  States  is  not 
thus  supervised.     (Sec.  16.) 

Districts  may  join  in  securing  irrigation  works,  the  cost  to  be 
apportioned  according  to  acreage.     (Sec.  32.     See  supra  p.  81.) 

Drainage  tcork. — The  act  authorizes  drainage  work  by  irrigation 
districts  organized  either  before  or  after  the  passage  of  the  new  law, 
and  whether  for  the  benefit  of  lands  actually  requiring  drainage  or 
as  an  advance  protection.  Such  drainage  work  may  be  done  simul- 
taneously with  the  construction  of  the  irrigation  system  or  other- 
Avise.  It  is  declared  that  the  powers  of  the  district  as  regards 
drainage  are  equal  to  its  powers  with  respect  to  irrigation.  (Sec. 
34.)  Contract  for  drainage  as  well  as  for  irrigation  may  be  made 
with  the  United  States.     (Sec.  18.) 

Bonds. — The  bonds  of  the  district  (for  irrigation  or  drainage) 
may  be  issued  to  mature  serially  in  not  less  than  5  years  nor  more 
than  40  years  after  the  date  of  issue,  as  the  board  may  determine. 
If  authorized  by  the  electors,  the  first  four  years'  interest  or  less 
may  be  included  in  the  bonded  indebtedness.  Interest  shall  not 
exceed  6  per  cent  per  annum.     (Sec.  20.)     The  sale  of  bonds  must  be 

^  See  p.  87  for  the  pui-pose  and  scope  of  tbis  discussion.  See  also  Addenda,  p.  169,  for 
1919  amendments. 


OREGON   STATUTES.  143 

advertised,  and  bonds  may  not  be  sold  for  less  than  90  per  cent  of 
their  face  value. 

Delinquent  fax  sales. — The  district  may  purchase  at  delinciuent  tax 
sales  in  the  absence  of  other  bidders  taking  title  to  the  land,  and 
disposing  of  the  same  as  any  other  purchaser.  The  district  is  ex- 
pressly prohibited,  however,  from  bidding  more  than  the  total  of 
all  taxes  against  the  land  Avith  interest  and  penalties,  and  is  re- 
quired to  pay  cash  for  such  taxes.  It  is  authorized  to  include  such 
payments  in  the  operating  expenses  to  be  assessed  as  maintenance 
charges.     (Sec.  22.) 

Assessments. — A  computation  of  the  moneys  necessary  to  Ix'  raised 
by  the  district  is  made  by  the  board.  Each  acre  of  irrigable  laud  is 
assessed  the  same  as  every  other  acre,  provision  being  made  that  the 
amount  to  be  paid  any  landowner  for  easements  or  other  property'' 
required  by  the  district  may  be  deducted  from  his  i)ro])()rti()nate  part 
of  the  cost  of  the  reclamation.  It  is  provided  that  upon  lands  hav- 
ing water  rights  appurtenant  thereto,  assessments  other  than  those 
for.  operation  and  maintenance  and  drainage  shall  be  in  the  same 
proportion  to  full  assessment  as  the  additional  water  right  to  be  sup- 
plied bears  to  a  full  water  right,  and,  for  the  purposes  excepted, 
such  lands  having  a  jjartial  water  right  shall  be  assessed  as  other 
lands.  Where  the  contract  with  the  United  States  has  been  made 
the  amounts  payable  shall  be  fixed  in  compliance  with  the  Federal 
reclamation  laws,  public  notices  and  orders  thereunder,  and  with  the 
contracts  between  the  district  and  tlie  United  States,  lands  having 
partial  rights  being  assessed  in  proportion  to  benefit.  (Sec.  24:.  For 
State  land  taxation  see  p.  — .) 

Equalization. — The  work  of  equalization  devolves  upon  the  board 
of  directors  (sec.  25),  after  the  completion  of  which  certification  is 
made  to  the  county  treasurer,  who  enters  the  apportionment  upon 
the  county  assessment  roll  as  the  irrigation  district  tax  in  the  same 
manner  that  other  municipal  assessments  are  entered.  The  method 
of  collection  and  accounting  is  the  same  as  for  other  municipal  taxes. 
State  lands,  including  segregations  under  the  Carey  Act,  are  subject 
to  taxation  by  the  district;  also  public  lands  of  the  United  States 
to  the  extent  authorized  by  the  act  of  Congress  of  August  11,  1916. 
(Sec.  27.)  Should  the  board  neglect  or  refuse  to  perform  its  duties 
in  assessment  and  levy,  the  assessment  is  made,  equalized,  and  levied 
by  the  county  court.     (Sec.  27.) 

Eminent  domain. — The  eminent  domain  provisions  include  the 
right  to  condemn  property  already  devoted  to  public  use,  whether 
for  irrigation  or  otherwise,  which  is  less  necessary  than  the  use 
proposed  by  the  district.  Eights  of  way  over  State  lands  are  dedi- 
cated. The  use  of  water  for  irrigation  by  districts  together  with 
rights  of  way  and  other  property  is  expressly  declared  to  be  a  pub- 
lic use  more  necessary  and  beneficial  than  any  other  use.  public 
or  private,  to  which  the  water,  lands,  or  other  property  have  been 
or  may  be  appropriated  within  the  district.     (Sec.  31.) 

Confirmation. — Any  district  assessment  payer  or  other  interested 
person  may  bring  confirmation  proceedings  in  case  the  board  shall 
not  have  acted  within  30  days.  The  scope  of  the  confirmation  ex- 
tends not  only  to  the  organization  and  authorization  of  bonds  or 
of  contract  with  the  United  States,  but  also  to  orders  changing  the 


144  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

boundaries,  declaring  the  result  of  sluj  election,  or  lev3dng  an}^  gen- 
eral or  special  assessment.     (Sec.  41.) 

Bonds  as  iwvestments. — The  board  of  any  irrigation  district  may 
apply  to  a  commission  consisting  of  the  attorney  general,  the  State 
engineer,  and  tlie  superintendent  of  banks  for  the  purpose  of  ob- 
taining certificate  upon  bonds  of  the  district.  If  approved  by  the 
commission  certification  is  made  by  the  secretary  of  state  that  such 
bonds  are  legal  investments  for  trust  funds  and  for  the  funds  of  all 
insurance  companies,  commercial  and  savings  banks,  trust  com- 
panies, and  bonding  companies.  Whenever  any  money  or  funds 
may  by  law  be  invested  in  bonds  of  cities,  counties,  school  districts, 
or  other  mimicipalities,  such  moneys  may  be  invested  in  irrigation 
district  bonds  when  certified.  Such  bonds  may  also  be  used  for 
security  for  the  deposit  of  public  money  in  the  banks  of  the  State 
or  for  the  performance  of  any  act  for  which  the  bonds  of  other 
municipalities  may  lawfully  be  used.     (Sees.  44  to  48.) 

Merger. — Provisions  for  merger  of  Oregon  irrigation  districts  are 
referred  to  in  the  general  discussion.     (P.  83.) 

Sal's  of  water  or  electric  fovier. — Provision  is  made  for  the  sale 
of  water  for  lands  outside  the  district  and  the  furnishing  of  electric 
power  by  the  district  for  use  within  or  without  the  district  bound- 
aries upon  proper  compen.sation.     (Sec.  33.) 

Inclusion  and  exclusion.. — Provisions  are  made  for  the  inclusion 
and  exclusion  of  land,  the  latter  being  very  carefully  safeguarded 
against  loss  to  the  creditors  of  the  district,  their  consent  being  neces- 
sary to  the  freeing  of  the  lands  to  be  excluded  from  past  obliga- 
tions.    (Sec.  37,  pars,  e  and  /.) 

Dissolution. — The  irrigation  district  may  be  dissolved  as  the  re- 
sult of  a  vote  of  60  per  cent  of  those  voting  after  a  petition  to  the 
board  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  landowners  of  the  district  and 
advertisement  for  the  election.  The  board  must  find  that  all  claims 
and  obligations  against  the  district  have  been  fullv  paid.  (Sees.  39 
and  40.) 

South  Dakota.^ 

The  South  Dakota  irrigation  district  law  will  be  found  in  the 
Session  Laws  of  1917,  chapter  282,  beginning  at  page  542. 

This  enactment  has  a  common  origin  and  is  practically  identical 
with  the  North  Dakota  statute  of  the  same  year,  which  has  already 
been  outlined.     (See  pp.  135-138.) 

There  are  two  features,  however,  in  which  the  South  Dakota  law 
diverges  from  that  of  North  Dakota,  and  these  are: 

First,  the  requirement  that  in  addition  to  the  organization  elec- 
tion being  carried  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast,  such  votes  must 
"  also  represent  a  majority  of  the  acreage  within  the  proposed  dis- 
trict owned  or  held  by  the  electors  thereof  "  (sec.  3)  ;  and 

Second,  a  provision  that  "  all  common  school  and  endowment  lands 
located  Avithin  any  irrigation  district  and  susceptible  of  irrigation, 
shall  be  offered  for  sale  according  to  law  within  five  years  after  the 
time  water  is  available  for  irrigation,  and  after  sale  shall  be  in- 
cluded in  the  district  as  in  this  act  provided  for  including  additional 
lands."     (Sec.  36.) 


^  See  p.  87  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion. 


SOUTH   DAKOTA   STATUTES.  145 

Bonds. — Mature  in  20  years  and  bear  interest  at  a  rate  not  exceed- 
ing 6  per  cent  per  anninn.     (L.  1917,  555.) 

Texas.^ 

This  State  departs  more  widely  than  any  other  State  from  the 
usual  irrigation  district  statute.  Two  unique  features  are  that  in 
Texas  all  property  in  the  district,  personal  as  well  as  real,  is  subject 
to  assessment  for  irrigation  purposes;  and  that  the  name  of  the  cor- 
poration must  indicate  the  name  of  the  county  and  the  number  of  the 

district  as  " County  Water  Improvement  District  No.  — ." 

(Sec.  10.)     Another  consists  of  the  method  of  securing  operation  and 
maintenance  charges. 

The  law  will  be  found  in  the  General  Laws  of  Texas,  1917,  pages 
172  to  210,  being  chapter  87,  approved  March  19,  1917.  This  act 
repealed  the  former,  and  comparatively  regular,  irrigation  district 
statutes. 

Purposes. — The  district  is  authorized  to  construct  irrigation  im- 
provements, purchase  existing  works,  or  cooperate  with  the  United 
States  for  the  construction  of  irrigation  works,  including  drainage 
works  necessarj'  to  maintain  the  irrigability  of  the  land.     (Sec.  1.) 

Petitimi  for  organiZ'ation. — Petition  for  organization  is  presented 
to  the  county  commissioners'  court  on  the  part  of  a  majority  in  num- 
ber of  the  holders  of  title  or  evidence  of  title  to  lands  in  the  district, 
who  shall  also  represent  a  majority  in  value,  as  indicated  by  the 
State  and  county  assessment  rolls,  of  all  of  said  lands.  (Sec.  1.) 
The  district  may  include  towns  and  villages,  but  no  land  shall  be  in- 
cluded in  more  than  one  water  improvement  district. 

Hearing  on  petition. — At  the  hearing  before  the  county  commis- 
sioners' court,  following  notice  as  prescribed  by  statute,  interested 
persons  may  support  or  oppose  the  district. 

Ap2)eal.—X\\  appeal  from  the  order  lies  to  the  district  court  where, 
if  taken,  the  cause  is  tried  de  novo^  upon  the  same  record  and  plead- 
ings.    (Sec.  4.) 

Elections  and  electors. — Electors  are  defined  as  resident  property 
taxpayers  who  are  qualified  voters  of  said  proposed  district.     (Sec.  7.) 

Before  the  district  is  formed,  however,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the 
tax  collector  of  the  county  to  make  out  a  certified  list  of  the  property 
taxpayers  of  the  district  and  to  furnish  the  same  to  the  presiding 
judge  of  the  election.  The  same  duty  after  the  district  is  formed  de- 
volves annually  upon  the  tax  collector  of  the  district.     (Sec.  8.) 

All  elections  under  the  act  are  governed  by  the  State  election  laws 
except  as  otherwise  provided.  None  but  resident  property  taxpayers 
who  are  qualified  voters  of  the  district  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at 
any  election  called  by  the  directors.  (Sees.  54  and  73.)  Voters  are 
required  to  qualify  under  oath.     (Sec.  55.) 

Organization  election. — The  organization  election  requires  a  ma- 
jority of  two-thirds  of  those  voting.  Three  of  the  five  directors  con- 
stitute a  quorum  for  ordinary  purposes,  but  for  the  letting  of  con- 
tracts and  drawing  of  warrants  the  concurrence  of  four  directors  is 

1  See  p.  87  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion. 
160047—20 10 


146  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATIOISr   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

necessary.  (Sec.  13.)  The  offices  of  assessor  and  collector  are  com- 
bined in  the  same  person,  who  is  appointed  by  the  directors.     ( Sec.  15. ) 

Boundaries  to  he  marl'ed. — The  directors  must  have  the  boundaries 
of  the  district  marked  by  suitable  monuments.     (Sec.  16.) 

Exclusion  of  lands. — The  owners  of  lands  within  the  district  may, 
within  30  days  after  organization  of  the  first  board,  petition  for  ex- 
clusion from  the  district.  (Sec.  17.)  Notice  of  hearing  is  given  (sec. 
18)  and  the  board,  if  it  is  determined  that  any  land  is  not  susceptible 
of  irrigation  from  the  proposed  system,  shall  exclude  such  land,  the 
owners  thereby  waiving  all  rights  to  be  served  with  water.     (Sec.  19.) 

Inclusion  of  lands. — Similarly  owners  of  lands  contiguous  to  the 
district  may  petition  the  board  to  be  included.  Favorable  action  may 
be  taken  provided  such  land  may  be  irrigated  without  prejudice  to 
the  rights  of  any  of  the  original  territory  which  is  "  to  be  first  fur- 
nished with  an  adequate  supply  of  water."  The  lands  admitted,  how- 
ever, become  subject  to  their  proportionate  share  of  the  bonded  in- 
debtedness and  other  expenditures  by  the  district.  No  time  limit  is 
placed  upon  the  privilege  of  making  this  petition.  If  contract  has 
been  made  with  the  United  States  no  lands  shall  be  admitted  without 
the  written  consent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.     (Sec.  20.) 

Powers  of  directors. — The  powers  of  the  board  are  similar  to  those 
in  other  States  and  include  the  making  of  contract  with  the  United 
States  for  construction,  operation,  and  maintenance  of  irrigation  and 
drainage  Avorks,  as  well  as  the  usual  clauses  for  cooperation  with  the 
United  States.     (Sec.  21.) 

The  customary  penal  clauses  against  misconduct  by  the  directors 
are  broadened  to  include  the  engineer  of  the  district  and  all  em- 
ployees.    (Sec.  22.) 

Assessments. — Immediately  upon  the  qualification  of  the  assessor 
and  collector  he  shall  proceed  to  make  "  an  assessment  of  all  the  tax- 
able property,  both  real,  personal,  and  mixed,  in  his  said  district;  and 
such  assessment  shall  be  made  annually  thereafter."  An  affidavit  by 
the  owner  or  his  agent  shall  accompany  the  assessment  and  the  full 
value  of  the  propert}^  shall  be  stated. 

Assessor. — The  assessor  must  also  make  lists  of  all  property  not 
rendered  for  taxation,  and  all  laws  and  penal  statutes  providing  for 
the  rendition  of  property  for  State  and  county  taxes  are  made  appli- 
cable to  irrigation  districts.     (Sec.  25.) 

Equalization  of  assessinents. — The  directors  of  the  district  appoint 
three  commissioners  who  constitute  a  board  of  equalization  (sec.  26) 
which  meets  annually  to  examine  the  assessment  lists  (sec.  38).  They 
must  see  that  all  property  has  been  rendered  at  its  full  value,  having 
power  to  correct  assessments,  and  must  add  any  property  omitted. 
(Sec.  28. )_ 

Collection  of  taxes. — After  equalization  the  assessment  books  are 
returned  to  the  assessor  and  collector,  who  makes  up  the  assessment 
(sec.  34),  collects  all  taxes,  and  paj^s  the  same  over  to  the  official 
depository  selected  by  the  district  (sec.  35). 

The  assessor  and  collector  is  charged  by  the  directors  with  the 
total  assessment  shown  by  the  rolls,  proper  credit  being  given  for  all 
moneys  paid  over  to  the  depository.     (Sec.  36.) 

Delinquent  tax  foreclosure. — After  publication,  lands  delinquent 
are  required  to  be  foreclosed  and  sold  through  appropriate  suit. 
(Sees.  41  to  44.)    Upon  request  of  the  owner  such  land  may  be  sold 


TEXAS   STATUTES.  147 

in  subdivisions  less  than  the  whole,  only  such  portion  being  sold  as 
luiiy  be  necessary  to  satisfy  the  judgment.     (Sec.  45.) 

Delinquent  pei'sonal  property  taxes  bear  interest  and  penalties,  the 
collecto]'  being  required  to  seize  and  levy  upon  so  much  personal 
property  as  shall  be  sufficient  for  the  recovery  of  the  taxes,  penalty, 
and  interest.  If  no  personal  property  is  found  the  delinquent  tax  list 
is  made  up  charging  the  owner  with  the  amount  assessed  against  him. 
(Sec.  48.) 

The  right  to  redeem  delinquent  lands  may  be  exercised  by  the  tax- 
payer "  at  au}^  time  before  his  lands  are  sold  imder  the  provisions 
of  this  act  by  paying  to  the  collector  the  taxes  due  thereon  "  with  the 
interest  and  penalties.     (Sec.  49.) 

Plans  of  fToposed  works. — Following  the  establishment  of  the  dis- 
trict, the  qualificati(m  of  the  board  of  directors  and  the  return  of  the 
list  of  assessments,  the  directors  may  appoint  an  engineer  to  prepare 
a  survey  of  the  lands  and  plans  and  estimates  for  the  proposed  works 
in  detail,  unless  contract  is  to  be  made  with  the  United  States.  (Sees. 
50  and  51.) 

Bands  (vnd  United  States  contracts. — Thereafter  the  board  may 
order  an  election  for  the  consideration  of  the  bonding  of  the  district 
or  the  making  of  contract  with  the  United  States.  (Sec.  52.)  The 
bond  or  Federal  contract  require.s  a  two-thirds  majority  of  those 
voting.  (Sec.  50.)  Provision  is  made  that  where  the  directors  find 
it  necessary  to  modify  the  district  or  its  improvements  or  to  purchase 
or  construct  further  improvements  and  to  issue  additional  bonds  or 
make  supplemental  contract  with  the  United  States,  they  may  do  so 
following  a  two-thirds  vote  by  the  electors.  (Sec.  57.)  The  bonds 
mature  not  later  than  40  years  from  date  of  issue  and  bear  interest 
at  not  exceeding  6  per  cent  per  annum.     (L.  1917,  190.) 

Former  limitation  of  irudehtedness. — Prior  to  1917  the  bonded 
indebtedness  or  debt  assumed  for  construction  purj)oses  in  favor 
of  the  United  States  was  limited  by  law  pursuant  to  Article  III, 
section  52,  of  the  State  constitution  to  not  exceed  one-fourth  of  the 
assessed  valuation  of  the  real  property  of  the  district  (sec.  23),  as 
shown  by  the  assessment  thereof  made  for  the  purpose  of  determin- 
ing the  value  thereof,  or  at  the  last  annual  assessment. 

C onstitutioTud  amendment. — An  amendment  to  the  constitution, 
however,  was  adopted  in  that  year  granting  the  legislature  power  to 
authorize  all  such  indebtedness  as  may  be  necessary  to  provide  for 
the  conservation  and  development  of  all  the  natural  resources  of  the 
State,  including  irrigation  and  drainage  among  the  means  thereto. 
For  this  purpose  conservation  and  reclamation  districts  may  be 
created.  The  indebtedness  thus  authorized  may  be  evidenced  by 
bonds,  which  shall  be  a  lien  upon  the  property  of  the  district  and 
shall  be  discharged  by  funds  raised  by  assessment  and  levy. 

"  Conservation  districts!'''- — Under  this  amendment,  the  legislature 
passed  an  act  providing  for  the  creation  of  such  conservation  and 
reclamation  districts  in  the  manner  in  which  water  improvement 
districts  are  organized.  Districts  whether  organized  before  or  after 
the  passage  of  the  act,  may  avail  themselves  of  the  provisions  of  the 
constitutional  amendment  and  of  the  act  and  become  conservation 
and  reclamation  districts,  thus  removing  the  constitutional  limita- 
tion of  indebtedness. 


148  HANDBOOK   OF  IRRIGATION  DISTRICT  LAWS. 

Election  to  secure  constitutional  privilege. — Upon  presentation  to 
the  directors  of  such  district  of  a  petition  signed  by  20  per  cent  of 
the  owners  of  lands  in  any  water  improvement  or  irrigation  district 
praying  that  the  district  be  made  a  conservation  and  reclamation 
district  for  the  purposes  of  the  act,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  board 
to  call  an  election.  Such  election  is  conducted  as  provided  for  gen- 
eral elections  in  such  districts.  If  the  vote  is  favorable  to  the 
change,  the  district  becomes  a  conservation  and  reclamation  district 
upon  order  of  the  directors  without  change  of  name  or  impairment 
of  obligations  jjreviously  incurred.  (Fourth  called  session,  1918,  40.) 
The  Supreme  Court  of  Texas  in  the  case  of  Dallas  County  Levee 
District  v.  Looney,  has  upheld  the  validity  of  this  act  in  a  decision 
based  primarily  upon  levee  district  questions,  but  having  equal  appli- 
cation to  irrigation  districts.  This  decision  (unprinted)  was  ren- 
dered on  December  18,  1918. 

The  bonds  under  the  act  may  not  be  made  payable  more  than  40 
years  after  the  date.  The  usual  preference  in  the  order  of  priority 
of  time  is  given  to  bond  issues  and  contracts  with  the  United  States. 
(Sec.  58.) 

C on-firmation. — No  suit  can  be  brought  contesting  the  validity  of 
the  district  or  of  the  bonds  or  Government  contract  except  in  the 
name  of  the  State  of  Texas  and  by  the  attorney  general,  either  upon 
his  own  motion  or  that  of  a  party  affected  thereby  upon  good  cause 
shown  except  as  in  the  act  provided.     (Sec.  59.) 

Before  any  bonds  are  offered  for  sale  an  action  must  be  brought 
in  the  district  court  to  determine  the  validity  of  the  bonds,  for  which 
jurisdiction  of  all  parties  is  had  by  publication.  At  the  request  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  a  similar  action  may  be  brought  to  de- 
termine the  validity  of  the  Federal  contract.  In  such  cases  notice 
must  be  served  with  a  copy  of  all  proceedings  (sec.  60)  upon  the 
attorney  general,  who  is  then  required  to  examine  the  proceedings 
and  file  an  answer  tendering  the  issue  of  the  legality  of  the  bonds 
or  contract.    Sec.  61.) 

If  the  judgment  be  adverse  to  the  district  any  error  committed 
may  be  corrected  as  directed  by  the  court,  and  a  judgment  rendered 
showing  that  the  corrections  have  been  made.  This  judgment  is  re- 
ceived as  res  judicata  in  all  cases  relating  to  the  bonds,  the  collection 
of  monevs  for  the  United  States,  and  the  validity  of  the  district. 
(Sec.  62.") 

Bonds  to  he  certi-fiecl. — The  comptroller  is  required  to  attach  to 
each  bond  a  certificate  bearing  his  signature  and  official  seal,  show- 
ing that  the  decree  has  been  filed  in  his  office.     (Sec.  64.) 

Sale  or  exchange  of  honds. — The  directors  may  offer  and  sell  the 
bonds  upon  the  i3est  terms  possible,  but  at  not  less  than  the  face 
value  thereof.  They  may  exchange  the  bonds  for  property  or  in 
payment  for  work.     (Sec.  66.) 

Zery. — The  directors  must  levy  a  tax  upon  all  property  in  the  dis- 
trict sufficient  to  pay  the  interest  and  provide  a  sinking  fund  to  re- 
deem the  bonds  at  maturity.  If  contract  be  made  with  the  United 
States  a  tax  shall  be  levied  to  meet  the  installments  as  they  become 
payable.     (Sec.  68.) 

The  tax  is  levied  in  connection  with  the  original  bond  issue,  re- 
mains in  force  from  year  to  year  as  the  levv  for  that  purpose,  until  a 
new  levy  shall  be  made.    The  board  may  from  time  to  time  increase 


TEXAS   STATUTES.  149 

or  diminish  such  tax  so  as  to  adjust  the  same  to  tlie  taxable  values 
of  the  property  and  the  amount  to  be  collected,  so  as  to  raise  a  suffi- 
cient amount  to  pay  the  interest  and  sinking  fund  on  outstanding 
bonds.     (Sec,  112.) 

Funds. — All  moneys  received  from  taxation  are  covered  into  an 
interest  and  sinking  fund,  which  shall  only  be  paid  out  for  satisfy- 
ing the  bonds  or  contract  with  the  United  States.     (Sec.  CO.) 

The  moneys  collected  by  assessment,  or  otherwi.se,  for  the  mainte- 
nance and  operation  of  the  system  are  covered  into  the  maintenance 
and  operating  fund.     (Sec.  70.) 

E'tnlncrtt  domain. — The  right  of  eminent  domain  includes  the 
property  necessary  for  drainage  ditches  and  level's,  but  may  not  be 
exercised  against  land  used  for  cemetery  purposes  and  property 
owned  and  used  to  supplv  water  and  for  levees  and  drainage  ditches. 
(Sec.  77.) 

The  right  to  acquire  property  and  to  condenni  is  followed  by  a 
prohibition  against  the  condemnation  of  any  irrigation  system  built 
by  any  individual  or  corporation  authorized  to  appropriate  water 
and  construct  works,  but  any  such  system  may  be  acquired  by  con- 
tract with  the  owners.     (Sec.  24.) 

Dissolution. — Three  methods  for  dissolution  are  provided : 

First,  if  any  district  has-  not  within  two  years  following  organi- 
zation begun  to  acquire  the  necessary  property  and  diligently  to 
pursue  the  purposes  of  the  district  it  may  be  dissolved  without  the 
necessity  of  taldng  any  action.  Judgments  for  debts  may  be  ob- 
tained against  such  dissolved  districts  and  are  enforceable  in  the 
same  manner  as  judgments  against  disincorporated  cities  or  towns. 

Secondly,  when  all  obligations  have  been  fully  discharged  the  dis- 
trict may.  dissolve  by  following  the  same  procedure  as  is  prescribed 
for  its  organization. 

Thirdly,  districts  may  also  voluntarily  abolish  their  corporate 
existence  in  the  manner  prescribed  for  drainage  districts.     (Sec.  79.) 

Distncts  lying  in  two  or  more  counties. — Organization  of  districts 
lying  partly  within  two  or  more  counties  is  not  obtainable  as  else- 
where through  petition  to  the  board  wherein  the  larger  area  is  situ- 
ated, but  through  petition  to  each  board  of  county  commissioners. 
An  election  is  then  held  in  each  county,  but  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the 
district  as  a  whole,  as  shown  by  canvass  by  the  county  judge  of  the 
district  having  the  larger  acreage,  suffices  for  organization.  (Sec. 
80.) 

Provision  is  also  made  for  the  annexation,  by  special  proceedings, 
of  lands  lying  in  an  adjacent  county.  An  election  must  l)e  held  in 
the  established  district,  at  which  a  two-thirds  majority  of  the  resi- 
dent property  taxpayers  is  required  to  authorize  the  inclusion. 
(Sec.  83.) 

Constmctioii  vwrh. — More  than  usually  elaborate  provisions  are 
prescribed  Avith  regard  to  the  functions  of  the  board  of  directors  in 
their  construction  work.     (Sees.  84  to  94.) 

Revenue  for  operation  and  mnintenance. — The  entire  operation 
and  maintenance  cosl;  is  not  obtainable  by  taxation  or  through  levy- 
ing such  assessments  as  public  corporations  customarily  levy  and  as 
these  districts  levy  to  secure  construction  funds. 

Every  person  desiring  to  receive  water  during  any  year  must  fur- 
nish to  the  secretary  a  statement  showing  the  acreage  to  be  irrigated 


150  HAT^DBOOK   OF  lERIGATIOX   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

and  the  kind  and  area  of  crops  to  be  planted,  and  must  pay  at  the 
same  time  such  proportion  of  the  water  charge  or  "  assessment "  (in 
reality  in  the  nature  of  tolls)  therefor  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the 
board.  If  he  fail  to  do  so  there  is  no  obligation  upon  the  district 
to  furnish  him  water  for  that  year. 

Same — distinction  tetiveen  user  and  nonuser. — The  board  must  esti- 
mate the  expense  for  the  year  for  operation  and  maintenance  of  the 
system  and  a  portion  thereof,  not  less  than  one-third  nor  more  than 
two-thirds,  shall  be  paid  by  pro  rata  assessment,  of  the  usual  type, 
against  all  areas  which  the  district  is  in  position  to  water  by  its  sys- 
tem, whether  actually  irrigated  or  not.  The  remainder  of  the  esti- 
mated cost  shall  be  paid  as  charges  or  "  assessments  "  by  the  persons 
actually  applyig  for  water,  to  be  prorated  among  the  applicants, 
having  due  consideration  of  the  acreage  irrigated  and  the  crops  of 
each  water  user.  Each  water  user  shall  pay  the  same  price  per  acre 
for  use  upon  the  same  class  of  crops,  but  the  distinction  which  relieves 
one  who  fails  to  put  the  water  to  use  from  the  proportionate  cost  in 
full  required  by  the  laws  of  other  States  is  believed  to  be  a  step  in  the 
vrrong  direction  and  favoring  the  speculative  holder.  These  charges 
are  paid  in  installments  and  at  times  to  be  fixed  by  the  board,  but 
when  the  crops  are  harvested  the  entire  unpaid  "  assessment "  at  once 
becomes  due  and  must  be  paid  within  10  days  thereafter  and  before 
tlie  removal  of  the  crops  from  the  county. 

The  board  is  authorized,  in  its  discretion,  to  require  every  water 
user  to  enter  into  a  contract  with  the  district  covering  his  needs  for 
the  year,  and  to  require  negotiable  notes  as  security.  The  contracts, 
however,  are  not  to  constitute  a  waiver  of  the  lien  upon  the  crops, 
M  hich  is  expressly  given  by  the  act.  The  board  is  authorized  further 
to  borrow  money  at  interest  not  to  exceed  10  per  cent  for  operating 
and  maintenance  expenses  and  to  hypothecate  its  notes  or  contracts 
with  the  water  users.  The  crop  lien  of  the  district  to  secure^  assess- 
ments is  superior  to  all  other  liens  upon  the  crops,  and  the  district's 
assessments  bear  interest  at  10  per  cent.  Further  security  is  obtained 
in  the  right  of  the  district  to  shut  off  water  for  nonpayment,  the  pro- 
A-isions  as  to  security  running  with  and  binding  the  land.  Moreover, 
delinquents  in  these  assessments  are  posted. 

Sam,e — lohere  Government  contract. — In  case  of  contract  with  the 
United  States  the  same  remedy  applies  as  to  operation,  maintenance, 
and  rental  charges.  The  Federal  reclamation  laws,  however,  are 
declared  to  be  applicable  and  all  water,  the  right  to  the  use  of  which 
is  acquired  by  the  district  under  contract  with  the  United  States,  shall 
be  distributed  and  apportioned  in  accordance  with  the  acts  of  Con- 
gress, the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and 
the  provisions  of  the  contract.     ( Sec.  95. ) 

The  assessments  for  operation  and  maintenance  are  collected  under 
the  direction  of  the  board  bv  the  assessor  and  collector  of  taxes. 
(Sec.  98.) 

Additional  assessments. — In  case  the  revenue  thus  received  is  in- 
sufficient for  the  expenses  of  the  district,  the  balance  is  assessed  pro 
rata  in  accordance  with  the  assessments  previously  made  for  the  then 
current  year  and  are  paid  under  the  same  penalties  within  30  days 
from  the  time  the  additional  assessment  is  made,  due  notice  of  which 
is  given  both  by  posting  and  mailing.    (Sec.  96.) 


UTAH  STATUTES.  151 

Drainage. — Included  in  the  plans  of  any  district  may  be  the  neces- 
sary drainage  ditches  and  the  levees  required  for  the  protection  of  the 
land  under  the  system.  Water  improvement  districts  maj'  purchase 
the  systems  of  drainage  districts  provided  the  debts  of  the  latter  are 
assumed.    (Sec.  97.) 

Depository. — The  district  selects  a  depository  of  its  moneys  under 
the  provisions  applicable  to  counties.  (Sec.  100.)  A  competent 
auditor  to  examine  the  books  and  accounts  of  the  depository  must  be 
appointed  each  year.    (Sec.  104.) 

Joint  construction  of  loorks. — Two  or  more  districts  may  jointly 
construct  and  own  irrigation  works  and  reservoirs  under  written 
contract  pursuant  to  ratification  election  which  must  carry  by  a 
majority  vote  in  each  of  the  two  districts.  The  management  and 
construction  is  undertaken  jointly  by  the  two  boards.     (Sec.  106.) 

Transfer  of  water  right. — Lands  within  the  district  which  are 
difficult  to  irrigate  may  be  permitted  to  have  the  water  right  trans- 
ferred to  other  lands  adjacent  to  the  district,  which  may  be  admitted 
upon  an  equal  basis  of  water  service.     (Sec.  110.) 

Investvient  of  sinking  funds. — Moneys  in  the  sinking  funds  may 
be  invested  in  bonds  of  the  United  States,  the  State  of  Texas,  any 
county,  irrigation  or  water  improvement  district,  city,  town,  or 
school  district  in  the  State  of  Texas,  provided  such  bonds  do  not 
mature  subsequent  to  the  time  of  maturity  of  the  bonds  for  the  pay- 
ment of  which  the  sinking  fund  was  created.     (Sec.  113.) 

Refunding  bonds. — Refunding  bonds  may  be  issued  bearing  the 
same  or  a  lower  rate  of  interest  than  the  old  issue  and  may  be  applied 
to  the  purchase  of  the  old  bonds  redeemed  at  par  or  at  a  discount. 
The  comptroller  of  public  accounts  shall  not  register  the  new  bonds 
until  the  old  bonds  in  lieu  of  which  they  are  issued  are  presented 
for  cancellation  or  are  covered  by  a  valid  contract.  If  the  new  bonds 
are  of  the  same  amounts  and  have  the  same  dates  of  maturity  as  the 
old  bonds,  they  may  be  authorized  without  an  election,  but  if  they 
create  a  greater  burden  in  any  respect  than  the  old  bonds,  an  elec- 
tion must  be  held  under  the  same  provisions  of  law  as  in  the  case  of 
an  original  issue  of  bonds.     (Sec.  116.) 

Districts  in  unorganized  coumties. — Persons  in  any  unorganized 
county  desiring  to  organize  a  water  improvement  district  may  peti- 
tion the  commissioners'  court  of  the  county  to  which  the  unorganized 
county  is  attached  for  judicial  purposes.     (Sec.  117.) 

Utah.^ 

The  Utah  law  will  be  found  in  chapter  74  of  the  Session  Laws 
of  1909,  pages  144  to  168,  as  amended  by  the  laws  of  1913,  chapter 
101,  page  194,  and  by  Laws,  1917,  chapter  33,  page.77. 

Two  methods  of  initiating. — In  Utah,  in  distinction  from  all  other 
States,  irrigation  districts  may  be  initiated  not  only  by  the  land- 
owners, but  it  is  provided  that  the  governor  of  the  State,  upon  recom- 
mendation of  the  State  engineer,  may  propose  the  organization. 

Purposes. — The  purposes  of  organization  are  "  in  interest  of  con- 
serving and  putting  to  beneficial  use  the  public  waters  of  the  State, 
and  preventing  undue  waste  thereof." 

1  See  p.  87  for  the  pui-pose  and  scope  of  this  discussion.  See  also  Addenda,  p.  170,  for 
changes  made  by  substitute  act  passed  in  1919. 


152  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

Petition. — If  the  landowners  act,  it  may  be  by  petition  to  the 
board  of  county  commissioners  on  the  part  of  50  or  a  majority  of 
the  owners. 

Resident  entrymen,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  act 
of  August  11,  1916,  and  purchasers  of  State  lands  in  the  district,  are 
within  the  definition  of  owners  of  land.     (Id.) 

Imgated  lands  exempt. — Where,  however,  irrigation  systems  have 
been  constructed  before  the  passage  of  the  act,  these  systems  and 
"  the  lands  fully  watered  thereby  shall  be  exempt  from  the  operation 
of  this  law  except  such  district  shall  be  formed  to  purchase,  acquire, 
lease  or  rent  such  ditches,  canals,  reservoirs,  and  their  franchises, 
or  unless  such  district  shall  be  formed  to  make  contract  with  the 
United  States  under  any  Federal  law."     (Sees.  1  and  2,  L.  1917,  77.) 

Water  survey  and  allotment. — The  petition,  besides  the  usual 
prayer,  is  required  to  apply  for  a  water  survey  and  allotment  of 
water  for  the  lands  within  tlie  proposed  district.  The  county  board 
sends  a  copy  of  the  petition  to  the  State  engineer  with  the  request 
that  water  survey  and  allotment  be  made.  The  State  engineer  must 
make  same  for  each  40  acre  tract  or  smaller  tracts  in  separate  owner- 
ship and  report  to  the  county  board,  after  which  notice  of  hearing 
is  given.     (Sec.  2,  L.  1917,  78.) 

Hearing  on  petition. — The  county  board,  upon  the  hearing,  deter- 
mines, lists,  and  plats  the  lands  to  be  included  and  hears  applications 
for  changes.  Lands  not  embraced  in  the  petition  may  be  included 
at  the  hearing  and  allotted  water  by  the  county  board  "  using  the 
allotment  made  by  the  State  engineer  for  similar  lands  as  a  basis." 
If  the  county  board  shall  refuse  or  dismiss  the  petition  it  must  state 
its  reasons  in  writing,  and  if  in  error  a  writ  of  manadamus  may 
issue.     (Sec.  3,  L.  1917,  79.) 

Elections  and  electors. — All  persons  (including  corporations)  who 
are  ownere  of  agricultural  lands  to  which  water  has  been  allotted, 
are  entitled  to  vote  at  all  elections.  Each  elector  is  entitled  to  one 
vote  for  every  acre  foot  of  water  or  fraction  thereof  allotted  to  land 
owned  by  him,  and  must  sign  the  ballot  indicating  the  number  of 
acre  feet  allotted  to  his  lands.  (Sec.  4,  L.  1917,  80.)  A  majority  of 
the  votes  cast  is  sufficient  to  organize  a  district.    (Sec.  5,  L.  1917,  81.) 

Powers  of  the  hoard  of  directors. — Among  the  powers  of  the  board 
is  that  of  purchasing  the  capital  stock  of  mutual  irrigation  coni- 
panies  organized  for  the  sole  purpose  of  owning  and  operating  irri- 
gation systems,  but  the  authority  to  purchase  less  than  a  majority  of 
the  capital  stock  is  denied.  In  case  of  the  purchase  of  rights  and 
property,  the  bonds  of  the  district  may  be  used  at  their  par  value  as 
may  be  most  advantageous  without  previous  offer  of  sale,  but  there  is 
the  prohibition  (which  exists  also  in  several  other  States)  against  a 
contract  over  $10,000  and  not  over  $25,000  being  made  without  rati- 
fication by  land  owners.  Still  larger  contracts  require  an  election. 
(Sec.  11,  L.  1917,  83.) 

Power  to  lease  or  rent  water  not  needed  by  the  land  owners  or  to 
contract  for  the  delivery  thereof  to  other  lands  within  or  without  the 
district  at  not  less  than  one  and  one-half  times  the  district  tax  is- 
given  to  the  board. 

Assigmyient  or  lease  of  water. — Individual  land  owners  may  assign 
their  I'ight  to  water  apportioned  for  any  one  year  to  other  land  own- 


UTAH   STATUTES.  153 

ers,  provided  both  parties  have  paid  all  assessments  duo.  (Sec.  11,  L. 
1917,  85.) 

The  board  may  also  lease  water  to  occupants  and  enti-yiiien  of 
State  and  Federal  land  on  the  same  terms  and  may  contract  with 
such  persons  for  their  inclusion  in  the  district  when  title  is  obtained, 
provided  that  protest  in  writing  on  the  part  of  a  majority  of  the 
land  owners  shall  vitiate  the  action  taken.     (Sec.  12,  L.  1917,  86.) 

Evidence  of  organization. — Certified  copy  of  county  commission- 
ers' order  of  organization  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  legal  suffi- 
ciency of  the  proceedings  under  the  act  in  any  court  of  the  State,  and 
where  any  irrigation  district  has  exercised  the  powers  of  a  district 
through  a  de  facto  boai-d,  and  its  legality  has  not  been  questioned  in 
quo  warranto  proceedings  within  one  year  after  the  date  of  the  or- 
ganization order,  the  district  shall  be  conclusively  deemed  to  have 
been  legally  organized.     (Sec.  14,  L.  1909,  152.) 

Bond  issue. — For  the  purposes  of  construction  or  purchase,  for  co- 
operation with  the  United  States,  or  for  the  payment  of  interest 
upon  bonds  "  during  the  period  of  construction  and  for  not  more 
than  four  years  thereafter,  and  otherwise  carrying  out  provisions  of 
this  act,"  the  board  of  directors  is  required  to  make  the  necessary 
plans  and  estimates  for  an  election  upon  a  bond  issue.  At  such  an 
election  a  two-thirds  majority  is  required  of  the  votes  cast  to  author- 
ize the  bonds.  These,  when  issued,  run  for  a  period  not  to  exceed 
40  years,  and  at  the  expiration  of  11  years  and  annually  thereafter 
not  less  than  3  per  cent  of  the  whole  number  of  bonds  must  be  pay- 
able. It  is  expressly  provided  that  if  the  proceeds  of  the  bonds  be- 
come exhausted  additional  bonds  may  be  issued  after  favorable  ac- 
tion at  a  special  election,  the  same  to  have  a  lien  subordinate  to  the 
previous  bonds.  (Sec.  15,  L.  1917,  87.)  They  ma}^  bear  interest  at 
not  exceeding  6  per  cent  per  annum.     (L.  1917,  88.) 

If  the  proceeds  of  the  bonds  be  insufficient,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
board  of  directors  to  complete  the  construction  plans  by  levy  of 
assessments.     (Sec.  25,  L.  1917,  95.) 

Confirniation. — Confirmation  proceedings  in  the  matter  of  a  bond 
issue  are  discretionary.  The  statute  is  sufficiently  broad  to  include 
confirmation  of  proceedings  for  the  authorization  of  contract  with 
the  United  States,  and  for  the  allowance  and  adjustment  of  assess- 
ments for  lands  under  Federal  contract  where  a  partial  prior  water 
right  existed.  (Sec.  50,  L.  1917,  99,  and  Sec.  19,  par.  5;  L.  1917, 
91.)  The  decree  may  determine  the  validity  of  the  contract  with  the 
United  States.     (Sec.  54,  L.  1917,  101.) 

Sale  or  exchange  of  honds. — If  no  bid  is  received  as  the  result  of 
an  advertised  sale  of  bonds,  the  board  may  use  the  bonds  for  the 
purchase  of  canals,  reservoirs,  and  other  necessary  property  includ- 
ing the  capital  stock  of  mutual  companies  or  for  construction  pur- 
poses at  not  less  than  95  per  cent  of  the  face  value.  (Sec.  16,  L. 
1913,  198.) 

Annual  assessment  determined. — The  board  of  directors  is  required 
annually  to  determine  tlie  amount  of  money  necessary  for  the  ensu- 
ing year  for  district  purposes,  including  the  payment  of  assessments 
upon  capital  stock  of  mutual  irrigation  companies  owned  by  the 
district.  This  amount,  together  with  additional  amounts  necessary 
to  meet  any  deficiency  in  the  payment  of  expenses  theretofore  in- 


154  ha:ndbook  of  irrigation  district  laws. 

curred,  is  certified  to  the  county  commissioners  of  the  county  wherein 
the  office  of  the  district  is  located.     (Sec.  18,  L.  1917,  89.) 

Basis  of  assessment. — The  county  assessor  of  each  county  affected 
does  the  work  of  assessment,  entering  the  assessment  of  all  real  es- 
tate to  which  water  ha-s  been  allotted,  using  the  basis  of  the  value  per 
acre  foot  of  water  allotted,  although  the  board  of  directors  may  di- 
vide the  district  into  units  and  fix  a  different  value  per  acre-foot  in 
respective  units,  in  which  case  the  assessor  shall  use  the  same  basis. 
(Sec.  19,  L.  1917,  p.  90.) 

In  case  of  contract  with  the  United  States,  however,  the  assess- 
ment may  he  otherwise  apportioned  to  accord  with  the  Federal  laws, 
and  provision  is  made  in  the  same  event  for  the  existence  of  a  rental 
status  for  the  lands,  for  postponement  of  certain  charges  by  contract 
with  the  United  States  where  exceptional  difficulties  exist,  for  the 
division  of  the  project  and  the  placing  of  the  same  upon  a  repayment 
basis  in  successive  units,  and  for  the  granting  of  equitable  credit  to 
district  lands  previously  irrigated  with  due  consideration  to  the  cost 
of  the  additional  rights  acquired  under  contract  with  the  United 
States.  After  publication  of  notice,  a  meeting  of  the  board  is  held 
for  the  purpose  of  adjusting  the  rights  of  such  prior  owners  and 
making  an  allowance,  which,  when  confirmed  by  the  district  court, 
becomes  the  basis  of  the  assessment  of  such  lands.     (Id.) 

No  land  which  from  any  natural  cause  can  not  be  irrigated  or  cul- 
tivated is  liable  for  taxes  for  irrigation  purposes.     (Id.) 

Bates  of  levy. — Immediately  upon  the  receipt  of  the  returns  of  the 
district  assessments  and  the  certificate  of  the  board  of  directors  show- 
ing the  total  amount  of  money  required  to  be  raised  as  herein  pro- 
vided, the  county  board  must  fix  the  rate  of  levy  necessary  to  provide 
the  above-described  amount  of  money,  including  principal  and  in- 
terest on  bonds,  sums  due  the  United  States,  and  requirements  for 
other  purposes  necessary  to  be  raised  by  levy  of  assessment.  Such 
rates  are  certified  to  the  county  commissioners  of  each  county  em- 
bracing any  portion  of  the  district,  and  must  be  increased  15  per  cent 
to  cover  delinquencies.  For  the  purposes  of  the  district  the  county 
connnissioners  at  the  time  of  making  the  levy  for  county  purposes 
must  levy  at  the  rates  above  specified  upon  all  district  real  estate 
within  their  respective  counties. 

All  taxes  levied  under  the  act  are  special  taxes.  (Sec.  20,  L. 
1917,92.) 

Collection. — The  county  treasurer  of  the  county  in  which  is  located 
the  office  of  the  district  is  ex-officio  district  treasurer.  He  must 
collect  all  district  taxes  in  the  same  manner  and  at  the  same  time 
as  taxes  for 'county  purposes,  including  both  in  the  same  receipt. 
(Sec.  21,  L.  1917,  92.)  Except  as  modified  by  the  act,  the  revenue 
laws  of  the  State  are  applicable,  provided  that  lands  are  sold  sep- 
arately for  delinquent  district  taxes;  a  separate  certificate  of  sale  is 
issued,  and  the  period  of  redemption  from  sale  is  fixed  at  two  years. 

District  taxes  "  constitute  a  first  lien  on  the  property  assessed, 
which  lien  shall  remain  in  force  until  the  taxes  are  paid."  (Sec. 
22,  L.  1917,  91.) 

General  expenses. — For  organization,  operation,  and  maintenance 
purposes,  or  for  rental  of  water,  tolls,  and  charges  may  be  col- 
lected from  water  users  or  assessments  mav  be  levied,  or  both.  (Sec. 
25,  L.  1917,  95.)  ■ 


WASHINGTON   STATUTES.  155 

Inclusion. — Inclusion  petition  may  be  made  b}-  holders  of  title 
representing  a  majority  of  the  acrcaoc  of  lands  to  be  included.  The 
assent  of  the  Secretai'V  of  the  Interior  is  required  where  contract 
has  been  made  with  the  United  States.  (Sees.  31  and  32,  L.  1917, 
9G.) 

Exclimon. — When  there  are  no  outstanding  bonds  and  the  ma- 
jority of  the  landowners  in  the  district  do  not  protest  in  writing 
within  30  days,  exclusion  of  lands  may  l)e  ordered  upon  petition 
for  the  owners  thereof.  (Sec.  45,  L.  1917,  98.)  Such  exclusion  does 
not  impair  or  discharge  any  contract,  obligation,  lien,  or  charge 
for  which  the  district  was  or  might  become  liable  liad  the  lands  not 
been  excluded.  (Sec.  31,  L.  1917,  96. )  AVhen  contract  has  been 
made  with  the  United  States,  lands  shall  not  be  excluded  unless  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  assent  in  writing.     (Sec.  45,  Ij.  1917,  98.) 

Dhsolution. — Petition  for  dissolution  may  be  made  to  the  board 
of  directors  by  landowners  representing  a  majority  of  the  number 
of  acre-feet  of  Avater.  If  satisfied  that  all  claims  and  bills  have  been 
fully  settled,  the  board  calls  an  election.  In  the  event  contract  has 
beer,  made  with  the  United  States  the  board  is  without  jurisdiction 
to  consider  such  petition  or  to  hold  such  an  election  until  the  Secre- 
tary'' of  the  Interior  certifies  that  all  payments  and  obligations  to 
the  United  States  have  been  fully  paid  or  that  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  consents  to  such  dissolution.  (Sec.  48.  L.  1917,  98.)  If 
an  election  be  held,  a  majoritv  of  the  votes  cast  is  decisive.  (Sec. 
49,  L.  1917,  99.) 

Puhlic  right  to  apfropTiate  water  8usi'>ended. — The  governor  is 
authorized  "  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  surplus  and  unappro- 
priated waters  of  any  stream  or  other  source  of  water  supply  for  use 
by  irrigation  districts"  upon  recommendation  of  the  State  engineer, 
to  suspend  the  public  right  of  appropriation  of  water  for  a  period 
not  exceeding  five  years.     (Sec.  54x,  L.  1917,  101.) 

Washington.^ 

The  Washington  law  will  be  found  in  Remington's  1915  Codes 
and  Statutes  of  Washington,  sections  6416  to  6512,  as  amended  by 
the  Session  Laws  of  1917,  chapter  162,  page  723. 

Petition  for  organization. — Fifty  or  a  majority  of  the  holders  of 
title,  or  evidence  of  title,  to  lands  susceptible  of  irrigation,  irre- 
spective of  the  acreage  Avhich  they  represent,  may  petition  the 
county  commissioners  for  organization  of  an  irrigation  district. 

Pur^yoscH. — The  objects  of  organization  are  not  only  ])rovision  for 
the  construction  of  works,  but  also  the  reconstruction,  betterment, 
extension,  purchase,  operation,  or  maintenance  of  works  already  con- 
structed or  the  assumption  as  principal  or  guarantor  of  indebted- 
ness on  account  of  district  lands  to  the  United  States  imder  the 
'Federal  reclauiation  laws.     (Sec.  6416  as  amended  L.  1917.  723.) 

Lands  xoTiich  may  he  included. — The  county  board  in  determining 
the  lands  to  be  included,  is  not  restricted  to  lands  obtaining  a  new 
water  supply  or  even  lands  that  are  proposed  to  be  irrigated.  It  is 
sufficient  if  the  lands  are  benefited,  and  town  and  city  lots  may  be 

^  See  p.  87  for  tJie  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion.  See  also  Addenda,  p.  171,  for 
1919  amendments. 


156  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

included  and  assessed.     (Sec.  6417;  also  Sec.  6433  as  amended  L. 
1917,  729.) 

Lands  having  a  partial  or  full  water  right  when  included  in  any 
district  must  be  given  "equitable  credit  therefor  in  the  apportion- 
ment of  the  assessments  in  this  act  provided."     (Sec.  6417.) 

Orga/nization  election. — After  the  heai'ing  and  settlement  of  the 
boundaries  of  the  district  and  due  notice  given  of  election  for  or- 
ganization, two-thirds  of  all  the  ballots  cast  must  be  favorable  for 
organization  to  prevail. 

Electors. — Any  person  of  the  age  of  21  years,  being  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Washington,  holding  title,  or 
evidence  of  title,  to  land  embraced  within  the  district,  may  vote. 
Additional  qualifications  for  voting  required  by  the  general  elec- 
tion laws  are  not  applicable.  Where  title  to  community  property  is 
held  by  husband  and  wife,  both  may  vote.  A  corporation  may  vote 
by  its  duly  authorized  agent  upon  filing  with  the  election  officers 
a  written  instrument  showing  his  authority.  (Sec.  6418  as  amended 
L.  1917,  724.) 

Condemnation. — Condemnation  proceedings  are  governed  by  the 
laws  applicable  to  condemnation  by  private  corporation.  The  court 
may  consolidate  separate  suits  for  condemnation  of  rights  of  way 
into  a  single  action,  a  separate  finding  of  the  court  or  jury  being 
required  as  to  each  separate  tract.     (Sec.  6427.) 

The  right  of  eminent  domain  for  the  construction  of  works  across 
streams,  highways,  etc.,  is  given  and  right  of  way  over  State  lands 
is  dedicated  for  district  purposes.     (Sec.  6453.) 

Bond  ai'  contract  election. — The  bond  election  or  election  upon 
contract  with  the  United  States  requires  only  a  majority  of  the 
votes  cast. 

Bond  issiie. — Alternative  plans  for  issue  of  bonds  are  offered.  The 
bonds  may  run  for  20  years,  installments  upon  the  principal  begin- 
ning at  the  expiration  of  11  years,  or  they  may  be  issued  to  run  for 
40  years.  (Sec.  6432-1.)  Provision  is  made,  in  case  the  moneys 
thus  raised  are  insufficient,  for  the  calling  of  a  second  bond  election 
or  for  the  completion  of  the  plans  by  the  levy  of  assessments  with- 
out bonds.  It  may  be  stipulated  in  the  bonds  that  no  interest  shall 
be  paid  during  the  first  three  years  after  date  of  issue,  and  that  in 
lieu  thereof  the  rate  of  interest  shall  be  increased  for  a  succeeding 
period  of  years ;  but  in  no  case  shall  the  aggregate  of  interest  paid 
on  the  principal  exceed  an  average  of  6  per  cent  during  the  entire 
life  of  the  bonds.     (Sec.  6430  as  amended  L.  1917,  726.) 

Sale  of  honds. — Bonds  may  be  sold  at  public  or  private  sale  in 
the  discretion  of  the  board  or  exchanged  for  labor  and  materials 
necessary  for  construction,  b«t-ihey  ma.y  not  be  sold  or  exchanged 
for  less  than  90  per  cent  of  their  face  value.     (Sec.  6431.) 

Bonds  a  lien  ufon  the  land. — Bonds  and  payments  to  the  United 
States  shall  be  paid  by  revenue  derived  from  an  annual  assessment 
upon  the  real  property  of  the  district  and  all  such  real  property 
shall  be  and  remain  liable  to  be  assessed  for  such  payments.  The 
bonds  or  Federal  contract  obligations  become  a  lien  upon  all  the 
water  rights  and  other  property  acquired  by  any  irrigation  district 
and  upon  its  waterways,  reservoirs,  machinery,  and  improvements.  If 
default  be  made  in  the  payment  of  the  principal  or  interest,  the 
holders  of  the  bonds,  or  the  United  States,  as  the  case  may  be,  may 


WASHINGTON   STATUTES.  157 

take  possession  of  tlie  property  of  the  district  and  control  the  same, 
enjoy  the  rents,  issues,  and  profits  until  the  lien  created  can  be  en- 
forced bv  suit  as  in  the  case  of  foreclosure  of  mortgage  on  real  es- 
tate.    (Sec.  6432.) 

Assessments. — Assessments  were  formerly  upon  the  ad  valorem 
rule  of  California,  but  in  1915  (L.  1915,  520)  Washington  adopted 
the  benefit  basis  of  assessment  witli  the  proviso  '*  that  nothing  herein 
shall  be  construed  to  affect  or  impair  the  obligation  of  any  existing 
contract  providing  for  a  water  supply  to  lands  so  assessed,  unless 
the  rights  under  such  contract  shall  first  have  been  acquired  by  said 
district,  and  in  acquiring  such  riglits  the  district  may  exercise  the 
right  of  eminent  domain."  The  secretary  must  prepare  an  assess- 
ment book  with  all  lands  listed,  showing  the  ratio  of  benefits  and 
reference  to  any  water-supply  contracts.  Any  property  which  may 
have  escaped  assessmeut  for  any  year  shall,  in  addition  to  the  assess- 
ment for  the  then  current  year,  be  assessed  for  such  prior  year  in 
the  same  manner  as  for  the  current  year.  (Sec.  6433  as  amended 
by  L.  1917,  729.) 

Tlie  assessment  becomes  a  lien  upon  the  real  property  annually 
on  a  specified  date,  but  as  between  grantor  and  grantee  does  not 
attach  until  a  later  date.  Such  lien  is  paramount  to  any  lien  there- 
tofore or  thereafter  created,  whether  by  mortgage  or  otherwise, 
except  for  prior  assessments  and  general  taxes,  and  such  lien  shall 
not  be  removed  until  the  assessments  are  paid  or  the  property  sold 
under  the  law.     (Sec.  6438.) 

Equalization. — After  completing  his  assessment  book,  the  secre- 
tary delivers  it  to  the  board,  which,  upon  due  notice,  meets  as  a 
board  of  equalization.     (Sees.  6435  and  6436.) 

Levy. — The  directors  then  levy  an  assessment  sufficient  to  raise 
the  annual  interest  on  the  bonds,  increasing  the  amount  thereof  in 
ensuing  j^ears  so  as  to  discharge  the  bonds  as  they  mature  or  to 
raise  the  payments  to  the  United  States.  Similar  assessment  and 
levy  must  be  made  for  the  expense  fund,  including  operation  and 
maintenance  costs.  Special  funds  are  provided  and  the  assessments 
are  collected  by  the  county  treasurer. 

Neglect  of  duty  hy  oificers. — In  case  the  board  of  directors  fails 
to  cause  assessment  or  levy  or  the  equalization  thereof  to  be  made, 
the  duty  of  performing  these  acts  devolves  upon  the  board  of  county 
commissioners  of  the  county  where  the  office  of  the  board  is  located. 
The  treasurer  of  such  county,  in  case  of  the  neglect  of  the  secretary 
of  the  board  to  act,  must  perform  his  duties.     (Sec.  6437.) 

Payment  of  assessments. — The  secretary  must  deliver  the  assess- 
ment book  to  the  county  treasurer  of  the  county  in  which  the  office 
of  the  board  of  directors  is'^ftuate^fTtrrd  after  notice  taxes  become 
delinquent  on  the  date  specified,  unless  60  per  cent  of  the  taxes  have 
been  paid.  If  60  per  cent  be  paid,  the  remaining  40  per  cent  shall 
not  become  delinquent,  except  as  a  second  installment  and  at  a  later 
date.  In  the  case  of  districts  comprising  lands  obligated  to  the 
United  States  under  the  Federal  laws,  the  notice  as  to  the  date  of 
delinquency  shall  state  that  assessments  against  lands  in  connection 
with  such  obligations  will  become  delinquent  at  the  times  and  in 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  laws.  (Sec.  6439  as 
amended  by  L.  1917,  731.) 


158  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

Publication  of  delinquency  lists. — The  county  treasurer  must  pub- 
lish the  delinquency  list  twice  each  year,  at  the  times  when  the  two 
respective  installments  become  delinquent.  Publication  of  delin- 
quency lists  on  amounts  due  the  United  States  are  begmi  at  a  later 
date  and  delinquent  payments  bear  interest  and  penalties  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Federal  law.  (Sec.  6440  as  amended  by  L.  1917, 
732.) 

Tax  sale. — The  landowner,  or,  on  his  failure  to  do  so,  the  county 
treasurer,  may  designate  the  portion  of  any  tract  to  be  sold  first  at 
any  delinquent  tax  sale,  only  so  much  as  is  necessary  to  pay  the 
assessment  and  costs  if  sold.  If  there  be  no  purchaser,  the  whole 
amount  of  the  propertj^  is  struck  off  to  the  irrigation  district, 
which  has  the  same  rights  as  a  private  purchaser.  Authority  to 
convey  such  land  must  be  confirmed  by  resolution  of  the  board  fixing 
the  price  not  less  than  the  reasonable  market  value  of  the  land. 
(Sec.  6442.) 

Redemption  of  the  property  may  be  made  within  two  years  from 
the  date  of  purchase.     (Sec.  6444  as  amended  L.  1917,  733.) 

Redewptioii  of  honds. — Whenever,  after  10  years  from  the  issu- 
ance of  bonds,  there  shall  be  $10,000  in  the  bond  fund,  the  board  may 
advertise  for  bids  and  apply  said  sum  to  the  redemption  of  the  bonds 
at  the  lowest  price  bid,  but  not  in  any  event  at  more  than  par.  (Sec. 
6449.) 

Bids  for  construction  work. — The  usual  clause  requiring  public 
advertisement  for  bids  for  construction  work  is  declared  not  to  apply 
to  cases  where  the  board  is  authorized  to  exchange  bonds  for  labor 
and  material,  or  to  contracts  with  the  United  States.     (Sec.  6450.) 

General  expenses. — To  defray  the  expenses  or  organization,  opera- 
tion, and  maintenance,  tolls  and  charges  for  water  service  may  be 
imposed  or  assessments  may  be  levied,  or  both.     (Sec.  6452.) 

Special  assessments. — Special  assessments  may  be  levied  for  rais- 
ing additional  moneys  for  the  purposes  of  the  act,  an  election  car- 
ried by  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  being  necessary.  Fifteen  per 
cent  for  delinquencies  must  be  added  to  the  whole  amount  required. 
(Sec.  6456.) 

Limitation  of  indebtedness. — To  the  standard  prohibition  against 
the  incurring  of  debts  not  expressly  authorized  there  is  added  a  pro- 
viso that  the  board  may  incur  a  debt  for  necessary  engineering  in- 
vestigation of  the  feasibility  of  the  project  not  to  exceed  25  cents  per 
acre.  Moreover,  in  case  of  emergency  the  board  may  incur  a  debt 
not  more  than  15  per  cent  of  the  total  rates,  tolls,  charges,  and  as- 
sessments for  the  current  year  for  operation,  maintenance,  and  im- 
provement of  the  worksv  and  may  cause  warrants  to  issue  therefor. 
The  amount  of  the  warrants  shall'be  included  in  the  next  annual  levy 
for  maintenance.     (Sec.  6457  as  amended  L.  1917,  735.) 

Local  im/provement  cliMi'i.cts. — The  comprehensive  and  excdlent 
Washington  plan  for  local  improvement  districts  within  irrigation 
districts  has  been  outlined  ii>  the  general  discussion.  (See  supra, 
p.  76.) 

Inclusion  of  lands. — The  boundaries  of  the  district  may  be  changed, 
but  if  contract  has  been  made  with  the  United  States,  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  must  assent  in  writing.  (Sec.  6462.)  Petition  for  the 
annexation  of  lands  may  be  made  by  the  holders  of  title  represent- 


WASHINGTOi^  STATUTES.  159 

in^  one-half  or  more  of  a  body  of  contiguous  lands  adjacent  to  the 
irrigation  district.     (Sec  6463.) 

The  provisions  are  normal ;  the  election,  if  one  is  required  by  the 
development  of  the  proceedings,  requiring  a  majority  of  those  \oting. 
(Sees.  6464  to  6473.) 

Exclusion  of  lands. — The  exclusion  of  lands  from  the  district  re- 
quires that  the  holders  of  any  outstanding  bonds,  or  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  in  case  of  contract  with  the  United  States,  shall  give  as- 
sent in  writing,  Avhich  is  filed  with  the  board  of  directors.  If  assent 
is  not  filed,  the  board  must  dismiss  the  petition.  (Sec.  6480.)  Even 
though  such  assent  is  filed,  if  there  are  objections  showing  sufficient 
cause  an  election  must  determine,  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast,  the 
question  of  the  proposed  exclusion.     (Sees.  6481  and  6482.) 

C onflrmation. — Proceedings  in  confirmation  are  discretionary  with 
the  directors.  They  nuiy  be  initiated  to  determine  the  validity  of 
bond  issues  and  the  authorization  of  contracts  with  the  United 
States,  including  matters  relating  to  local  improvement  districts.  The 
provisions  are  substantially  as  in  other  States.  (L.  1917,  741  to  743; 
sees.  6492  and  6494.) 

Dissolution — Whei'e  no  outstanding  honds. — Iri^igation  districts 
may  be  disorganized  and  their  affairs  liquidated  in  case  there  is  no 
bonded  indebtedness  outstanding  (6495)  in  the  following  manner: 
Petitioii  therefor  must  be  signed  by  one-third  or  more  of  the  holders 
of  title  who  are  qualified  electors  of  the  district  and  delivered  to  the 
board  of  directors.  (Sec.  6496.)  At  the  election  ensuing  a  three- 
fifths  majority  must  favor  the  dissolution,  whereupon  the  board  of 
directors  presents  to  the  superior  judge  of  the  county  an  applica- 
tion for  an  order  of  dissolution.  A  sw^orn  statement  by  the  directors 
must  be  filed  showing  the  outstanding  indebtedness  of  the  district 
or  that  there  is  no  such  indebtedness.  The  order  is  entered  if  the 
court,  upon  consideration,  find  compliance  with  the  law.  (Sec. 
6498.) 

Upon  such  dissolution  the  board  of  directors  "  shall  be  trustees 
of  the  creditors  and  of  the  property  holders  of  said  district  for  the 
purpose  of  collecting  and  paying  all  indebtedness  of  said  district, 
in  which  actual  construction  work  has  been  done,  and  shall  have 
the  power  to  sue  and  be  sued?  The  board  must  levy  and  collect 
a  tax  sufficient  to  pay  all  debts,  the  same  to  be  levied  and  collected 
as  prescribed  in  general  for  taxes  of  irrigation  districts.  Any  bal- 
ance after  the  clelDts  and  costs  have  been  paid  is  refunded  in  propor- 
tion to  the  contribution  by  each  assessment  payer.     (Sec.  6499.) 

Dissolution — Where  honds  are  outstanding. — If.  however,  there 
are  bonds  of  the  district  outstanding,  the  dissolution  proceedings 
can  only  be  commenced  with  the  written  consent,  duly  acknowledged, 
of  two-thirds  in  amount  of  the  holders  of  all  such  bonds,  which  con- 
sent must  be  filed  with  the  county  auditor.  (Sec.  6501.)  Then  a  peti- 
tion on  the  part  of  one-third  of  the  qualified  electors  praying  that 
the  district  be  dissolved  shall  be  filed  with  the  county  auditor.  (Sec. 
6502.)  The  board  of  county  commissioners  calls  an  election  upon 
the  dissolution  which  requires  a  majoritv  of  the  votes  cast.  (Sees. 
6503  and  6505.) 

The  books  and  records  of  the  district  are  then  delivered  to  the 
county  auditor,  who  certifies  to  the  county  clerk  a  transcript  of  the 


160  HANDBOOK   OF   IREIGATIOlSr   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

proceedings  before  the  county  board  and  a  statement  of  the  indebt- 
edness of  the  district  as  it  appears  from  the  records.     (Sec.  6506.) 

The  proceeding-  is  then  docketed  in  the  superior  court  and  notice 
for  the  filing  of  all  claims  is  given.  The  court  proceeds  to  deter- 
mine the  validity  of  claims  against  the  district  which  have  not  been 
barred  by  the  statute  of  limitations.  (Sees.  6507  and  6508.)  From 
the  resulting  judgment  appeal  may  be  taken.  If  not,  a  master  is 
appointed  who  must  give  notice  of  the  sale  of  the  rights  and  fran- 
chises of  the  district  not  including,  however,  any  property  which  has 
been  sold  for  taxes  or  assessments. 

The  sale  is  of  the  same  description  as  that  of  real  property  on 
execution.  "  Such  master  is  authorized  to  receive  in  payment  of  the 
purchase  price  any  securities  or  obligations  of  such  district,  the 
validity  of  which  has  been  established  by  the  previous  judgment 
of  the  court,  as  herein  provided;  such  securities  or  obligations  are 
to  be  accepted  at  their  face  value  and  no  bids  shall  be  accepted,  and 
no  sale  of  said  property  shall  be  made  for  a  less  sum  than  the 
amount  of  bonded  indebtednes  of  such  district,  including  all  accrued 
interest."     (Sec.  6509.) 

The  return  of  the  master  is  filed  with  the  court,  which  confirms 
the  sale  if  satisfied  that  it  has  been  fairly  conducted.  Deed  or  con- 
veyance is  then  delivered  bv  the  master  to  the  purchaser.  (Sec. 
6510.) 

As  soon  as  such  sale  is  confirmed,  the  county  commissioners  levy 
an  assessment  to  liquidate  "  all  outstanding  indebtedness  of  such 
district,  exclusive  of  the  bonded  indebtedness  herein  provided,  on 
all  the  property  within  the  district,  subject  to  assessment  under  the 
general  irrigation  district  laws  of  the  State,  which  indebtedness 
shall  be  ascertained  by  reference  to  the  judgment  of  the  court  as 
herein  provided." 

In  levying  such  assessments  the  county  board  is  governed  by  the 
general  irrigation  district  laws,  except  as  otherwise  specifically  pro- 
vided. The  county  assessor  under  the  direction  of  the  county  board 
prepares  an  assessment  roll  of  the  lands  of  the  district  from  the  last 
assessment  roll  of  the  county  for  State  and  county  taxes.  The  board 
then  equalizes  the  same  after  notice  in  the  same  manner  as  directors 
of  irrigation  districts  are  required  to  do.  The  county  auditor  per- 
forms the  same  duties  as  under  normal  circumstances  would  devolve 
on  the  secretary  of  the  district.  In  all  other  respects  such  tax  is 
collected  as  under  the  general  irrigation  district  laws.     (Sec.  6511.) 

As  soon  as  the  sale  is  confirmed  the  court  makes  an  order  dissolv- 
ing the  irrigation  district.  This  is  recorded  in  the  office  of  the  county 
auditor  and  the  district  ceases  to  exist  except  for  the  purpose  of 
collection  of  its  indebtedness,  all  papers  being  turned  over  to  the 
county  auditor  and. the  bonds  and  other  obligations  canceled  as  soon 
as  paid.     (Sec.  6512.) 

Wyoming.^ 

The  Wyoming  law  will  be  found  as  chapter  72  of  the  laws  of  1907 
and  in  the  Wyoming  Compiled  Statutes  of  1910,  sections  829  to  873, 
inclusive,  as  amended  by  Laws,  1911,  chapters  31  and  99. 

>  See  p.  87  for  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  discussion.  See  also  Addenda,  p.  172,  for 
1919  amendments. 


WYOMmC   STATUTES.  161 

Petition  for  organization. — Organization  is  begun  in  W3'oming  by 
petition  to  the  board  of  county  commissioners  on  the  part  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  freeholders  within  the  district  owning  a  majority  of 
the  acreage  belonging  to  the  freeholders  within  the  district.  (Sec. 
831.) 

Lands  exempted. — ^AVhere  irrigation  works  have  been  constructed 
or  contracted  for  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act,  the  lands  there- 
under are  exempt  from  the  act  unless  the  district  be  formed  to  ac- 
quire, lease,  or  rent  the  works  and  their  franchises  with  the  consent 
of  the  owners.     (Sec.  829.) 

The  act  does  not  apply  to  lands  which  have  been  brought  under 
the  Care}'  Act  of  Congress  "  nor  to  lands  and  the  owners  thereof 
situated  under  and  susceptible  of  irrigation  from  any  system 
of  reservoirs,  ditches,  or  canals  for  which  water-right  permits 
have  been  granted,  or  shall  hereafter  be  granted,  by  the  State 
engineer  to  persons  or  corporations  who  propose  the  construction 
of  reservoirs,  ditches,  or  canals  for  the  irrigati(m  of  the  lands  sus- 
ceptible of  irrigation  therefrom."  (Sec.  873.)  The  meaning  of  this 
provision  is  not  apparent,  but  it  probably  would  be  construed  to 
prevent  the  automatic  application  of  the  act  to  irrigated  lands  whose 
owners  do  not  take  steps  for  organization  under  the  act. 

No  land  may  be  included  in  the  district  if  the  owner  thereof  shall 
make  application  at  the  hearing  before  the  county  commissioners 
to  withdraw  the  same.  (Sec."  832.)  This  is  regarded  as  a  serious 
defect  in  the  law,  as  it  makes  organization  an  entirely  voluntary  af- 
fair as  regards  each  individual  tract  and  opens  the  way  to  what  is 
known  as  the  "  spotted  "  or  "  checkerboard  "  project.  Any  owner 
Avho  desires  to  withdraw  and  allow  the  irrigation  system  to  be  built, 
finding  it  inconvenient  to  improve  his  land  or  hoping  at  a  lat^r  date 
to  be  able  to  dispose  of  his  land  at  a  higher  price,  may  withhold  his 
support  from  this  public  improvement. 

Purposes. — The  purposes  of  organization  include  not  only  pro- 
vision for  irrigation  (sec.  829),  but  also  for  improving  the  water 
supply,  as  well  as  for  the  repair  and  maintenance  of  irrigation  works 
after  they  have  reverted  to  the  landowners  from  the  original  person 
Or  corporation  undertaking  the  project.     (Sec.  873.) 

Electors  and  electio7is. — Qualified  electors  are  defined  as  citizens 
of  the  United  States  or  those  who  may  have  declared  their  intention 
to  become  such.  As  regards  voting  upon  the  organization  of  the 
district,  or  for  the  first  board  of  directors,  or  for  the  issuance  of 
bonds,  or  upon  contracts  in  excess  of  $25,000,  an  elector  residing 
outside  of  Wyoming  or  more  than  10  miles  beyond  the  exterior 
boundaries  of  the  district  may  vote  without  being  personally  pres- 
ent, by  the  mailing  of  an  affidavit  which  states  his  qualifications  as 
an  elector  and  also  serves  the  purpose  of  a  ballot.     (L.  1911,  162.) 

All  persons  who  are  both  freeholders  and  qualified  electors  within 
the  district  and  who  have  paid  a  property  tax  in  the  proposed  dis- 
trict during  the  preceding  year  are  entitled  to  vote  at  the  organiza- 
tion and  other  elections.  (Sec.  832.)  Elections  are  conducted  as 
nearly  as  practicable  under  the  election  laws  of  the  State.  (Sec, 
833.)  A  majority  of  the  votes  cast  at  elections  determines  the  ques- 
tions presented. 

160047—20 11 


162  HANDBOOK   OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

Report  of  State  eng'mee7\ — The  State  engineer  is  required,  as  re- 
gards the  origin  of  the  district,  to  make  report  as  to  the  feasibility 
and  probable  cost  of  the  irrigation  sj^stem,  this  report  to  accompany 
the  petition.     (Sec.  831.) 

Action  on  petition. — If  the  county  board  denies  the  petition  or 
dismisses  the  same  it  is  required  to  state  the  reasons  in  writing,, 
and  if  the  same  are  not  well  founded  a  writ  of  mandamus  is  issued, 
which  must  be  heard  within  20  days.     (Sec.  832.) 

Contracts. — Contracts  involving  a  consideration  exceeding  $10,000' 
and  not  exceeding  $25,000  are  not  binding  unless  authorized  in 
writing  by  not  less  than  one-third  of  the  legal  electors  of  the  district 
according  to  the  number  of  votes  cast  at  the  last  district  election. 
Contracts  exceeding  $25,000  require  an  election.     (Sec.  839.) 

Water  apportioned  pro  ratCi.. — Water  is  apportioned  to  the  land- 
owner "  pro  rata  to  the  lands  assessed."  The  board  has  the  power 
to  lease  the  use  of  water  at  its  discretion,  the  rental  not  to  be  less 
than  one  and  one-half  times  the  amount  of  the  district  tax  which 
would  be  required  if  the  land  were  held  as  a  freehold  within  the 
district.  A  landowner,  provided  he  has  paid  in  full  all  assess- 
ments, may  assign  the  water  apportioned  to  him  or  a  part  thereof 
for  anv  year  to  any  otlier  bona  fide  landowner  in  the  district. 
(Sec.  839.) 

Evidence  of  legal  existence. — Judicial  notice  is  taken  of  the  exist- 
ence of  irrigation  districts  after  they  have  filed  for  record  a  certified 
copy  of  the  countj^  commissioners'  order  defining  their  boundaries. 
Where  any  such  district  has  exercised  its  appropriate  functions  and 
the  legality  of  its  organization  has  not  been  questioned  by  proceed- 
ings in  quo  warranto  Avithin  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  filing 
of  the  order,  it  is  conclusively  deemed  to  be  a  legally  established 
district  and  its  lawful  formation  can  not  be  questioned  in  any  sub- 
sequent suit  or  proceeding.     (Sec.  842.) 

Bonds. — For  purposes  of  construction  and  the  acquisition  of 
property  and  rights  and  to  pay  the  first  year's  interest  upon  the 
bonds,  the  board  of  directors  is  required  to  call  an  election  upon  a 
l)ond  issue.  Plans  of  the  pro])osed  irrigation  system,  however,  must 
first  be  submitted  to  the  State  engineer  and  his  written  approval 
obtained.  The  bonds  when  issued  run  for  20  years,  the  payments 
upon  the  principal  beginning  at  the  expiration  of  11  years.  A  ma- 
jority of  the  electors,  however,  may  provide  for  the  issuance  of 
bonds  maturing  earlier  than  at  the  end  of  20  years.  Interest  is 
limited  to  6  per  cent  per  annum.     (Sec.  843.) 

WTien  funds  derived  from  any  previous  bond  issue  have  been 
exhausted  by  authorized  expenditures  and  the  board  deems  it  neces- 
sary to  raise  additional  money,  another  special  election  is  required 
to  be  held.  The  taxes  for  the  later  bond  issue  constitute  a  lien 
subordinate  to  that  of  any  prior  issue.  (Sec.  843.)  Bonds  may  be 
sold  at  a  price  not  less  than  90  per  cent  of  the  face  value.  (L. 
1911,  44.) 

Assessment  and  levy. — ^"  Said  bonds,  and  the  interest  thereon,  shall 
be  paid  by  revenue  derived  from  an  annual  assessment  upon  the 
real  property  of  the  district,  and  the  real  property  of  the  district 
shall  be  and  remain  liable  to  be  assessed  for  such  payments  as 
herein  provided."     (Sec.  845.) 


WYOMING   STATUTES.  163 

The  machinery  for  taxation  may  be  sninmarized  as  follows:  The 
board  of  directors  is  required  each  yeai-  to  determine  the  amount  of 
money  I'equired  to  meet  the  maintenance,  operatin<r  and  current  ex- 
penses, and  any  deficiency  in  the  ])ayment  of  such  expenses  previously 
incurred  and  to  certify  said  amount  to  the  county  commissioners 
(Sec.  846.)  llien  the  county  board  at  the  time  provided  for  making 
the  tax  levy  for  county  ])urposes  or  innnediately  upon  tlie  receipt  of 
the  returns  of  the  total  assessment  of  the  district  must  fix  the  rate 
of  levy  necessary  to  provide  the  required  amount  of  money,  including 
principal  and  interest  upon  the  bonds,  and  for  other  purposes.  These 
rates  are  certified  to  the  county  commissioners  of  eac^h  county  em- 
bracing any  part  of  the  district  and  are  increased  15  ])er  cent  to 
cover  delinquencies.  A  levy  at  such  rates  is  then  made  upon  all 
real  estate  of  the  district  in  connection  with  the  levy  for  county 
purposes.  The  taxes  under  the  district  law  are  special  taxes, 
(Sec.  817.) 

Each  county  assessor  is  required  to  assess  all  real  estate,  exclusive 
of  improvements,  situate  in  the  irrigation  district  within  his  county 
and  to  make  returns  of  the  total  auiount  of  such  assessment  to  the 
county  commissioners  of  the  county  where  the  district  office  is  lo- 
cated. The  lands  are  valued  at  the  same  rate  per  acre,  but  no  land 
is  taxed  which  can  not  be  irrigated  and  cultivated.     (Sec.  848.) 

Treasurer. — The  county  treasurer  of  the  count}''  where  the  district 
office  is  located  is  ex-officio  district  treasurer.  The  revenue  laws  for 
assessment,  levy,  and  collection  of  taxes  on  real  estate  for  county 
purposes,  except  as  expressly  modified,  are  applicable,  including 
penalties  and  forfeitures  for  delinquencies.     (Sec.  850.) 

General  expenses. — Organization,  operation,  maintenance,  and  im- 
provement expenses  may  be  paid  by  means  of  tolls  and  charges  upon 
water  users  or  by  the  levy  of  assessments,  or  b}'  both  tolls  and  assess- 
ments. In  case  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  bonds  be  insufficient  and 
bonds  be  unavailable  for  completion  of  the  plans  of  works  adopted, 
the  board  of  directors  are  required  to  provide  for  completion  by  the 
levy  of  assessments.     (Sec.  853.) 

Limitation  on  indehtedness. — Any  debt  or  liability  incurred  by  the 
district  in  excess  of  that  expressly  authorized  by  law  is  absolutely 
void.     (Sec.  855.) 

Inclusion  of  lands. — Petition  for  the  inclusion  of  lands  within  a 
district  may  be  made  by  holders  of  title  representing  a  majority  of 
the  acreage  of  the  land  proposed  to  be  included  (sec.  859),  but  the 
board  in  acting  on  the  petition  must  not  include  in  the  district 
*'  lands  of  any  owner  or  owners  objecting  thereto."  The  proceedings 
are  of  the  usual,  tyi)e,  it  being  provided  that  protest  against  the 
inclusion  of  lands  on  the  part  of  a  majority  of  the  qualified  electors 
of  the  district  shall  vitiate  the  inclusion  proceedings.     (Sec.  863.) 

Exclusion  of  laiuls. — The  exclusion  proceedings  are  of  the  cus- 
tomary type,  with  the  express  provision  that  the  exclusion  shall  not 
"  effect,  impair,  or  discharge  any  contract,  obligation,  lien,  or  charge 
for  or  upon  which  such  land  would  or  might  have  become  liable  or 
chargeable  had  such  land  not  been  excluded  from  the  district" 
(867).  There  is  no  provision  requiring  the  consent  of  bondholders 
or  creditors  as  a  prerequisite  to  an  exclusion  order. 


164  HANDBOOK  OF   IRRIGATION   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

Dissolution. — Petition  for  dissolution  may  be  presented  to  the 
board  of  directors  by  a  majority  of  the  freeholders  representing  the 
majority  of  the  number  of  acres  of  irrigable  land.  The  petition 
must  state  that  all  bills  and  claims  against  the  district  have  been 
fully  satisfied  and  paid.  The  board  is  required  to  satisfy  itself 
that  such  is  the  fact  before  calling  an  election  upon  the  dissolution. 
(Sec.  868.)  •  ^ 

C owjirination. — Proceedings  in  confirmation  for  determining  the 
validity  of  the  organization  and  of  the  issue  and  sale  of  bonds  are 
discretionary  with  the  board.  The  general  provisions  follow  the 
customary  form.     (Sees.  870,  871,  872.) 


ADDENDA. 

Changes  ix  1919. 

provisions  in  laws  of  1919.^ 

Arizona. — The  distinction  between  general  electors  and  qualified 
electors  for  bond  issues  and  special  assessments  has  been  done  away. 
An  elector  is  one  who  has  held  title  or  evidence  of  title  for  90  days 
and  has  been  a  resident  for  six  months.  (Ch.  157.  pp.  201-264.) 
The  same  act  has  also  supplied  an  alternative  as  regards  the  period 
that  bonds  run  where  the  per  acre  debt  does  not  exceed  $30. 

Californiia. — Full  authority  for  the  construction  and  maintenance 
of  electrical  power  works  with  the  privilege  of  selling  power  to 
municipal  ancl  private  corporations  and  persons  is  granted  by  chap- 
ter 370,  page  779,  and  the  right  to  appropriate  water  and  to  issue 
bonds  therefor  is  declared.  These  powers  are  not  made  subordinate 
to  or  rendered  of  a  character  purely  incidental  to  irrigation.  It 
appears  that  the  district  has  the  right  to  embark  upon  the  develop- 
ment of  power  irrespective  of  any  needs  for  pmnping  to  any  dis- 
trict lands.  Express  provision  for  assessment  to  carr}^  out  contracts 
for  power  for  the  irrigation  of  district  lands  has  been  made  by  chap- 
ter 291,  page  472,  amending  section  39  of  the  law  of  1897. 

Broad  powers  have  been  given  to  the  board  of  directors  to  con- 
tract with  the  United  States  or  anj'  State,  county,  district  of  any 
kind,  public  or  private  corporation,  association,  firm  or  individual, 
for  the  joint  acquisition,  construction,  leasing,  ownership,  disposition, 
use,  management,  maintenance,  repair  or  operation  of  any  property 
of  a  kind  which  might  lawfully  be  owned  by  an  irrigation  district 
by  chapter  339,  pages  660-669.  The  right  is  also  given  to  store  water 
in  any  reservoir  or  to  carry  water  through  a  conduit  which  is  not 
the  property  of  the  district. 

The  same  statute  amends  section  18  of  the  act  of  1897  modifying 
the  rule  for  the  apportionment  of  water  according  to  the  charges 
paid,  in  the  case  of  revenue  secured  by  tolls  and  charges.  In  such 
cases  equitable  distribution  is  adopted  as  the  basis  of  apportionment. 
(Sec.  3.)  It  is  now  allowable  for  the  estimates  for  bond  issues  to 
include  a  sum  sufficient  to  pay  interest  on  bonds  for  an  initial  three- 
year  period  (Id.  sec.  4),  provided  the  plan  be  approved  (sec.  5)  by 
"the  bond  certifying  commission.  (See  p.  43  above.)  The  petition 
for  a  bond  election,  described  on  page  94  above,  is  now  necessary 
only  when  the  directors  omit  to  direct  an  election  (Id.  sec.  7,  amend- 
ing sec.  30-c).  If  the  directors  act  of  their  own  initiative  a  two- 
thirds  majority  of  the  votes  cast  at  the  election  must, favor  the  bond 
issue,  but  if  the  petition  shall  have  been  presented,  as  contrasted 
with  independent  action  by  the  board,  a  bare  majoritj^  of  the  votes 
cast  is  sufficient  to  authorize  the  bonds  (Id.  sec.  8). 

»  The  States  of  Kansas,  North  Dakota,  Oklahoma,  South  Dakota,  and  Texas  made  no 
changes  in  1919. 

165 


16G  HANDBOOK   OF   lEPJOATIO]^   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

Chapter  489,  page  1004,  makes  provision  for  the  issuance  of  re- 
funding- bonds  which  may  be  authorized  by  a  majority  vote  and  may 
be  issued  under  the  usual  circumstances  and  safeguards. 

Alternative  phins  for  the  dissolution  of  California  irrigation  dis- 
tricts have  been  outlined  above  (p.  100) .  Two  additional  and  alterna- 
tive methods  have  been  incorporated  into  the  law  by  chapter  856, 
pages  751-752.  These  are:  (a)  Where  the  district  has  been  organized 
over  three  years  and  has  failed  to  secure  adequate  water  supply,  is 
without  reasonable  prospect  of  doing  so  and  has  failed  to  obtain  the 
approval  of  the  State  water  commission,  the  State  engineer,  and  the 
irrigation  district  bond  commission  and  has  not  secured  irrigation 
works;  and  (b)  where  the  district  has  been  organized  for  over  10 
years  and  for  over  5  years  after  securing  irrigation  works  has  failed 
to  maintain  the  same  and  to  supply  water  to  over  10  per  cent  of  its 
irrigable  lands.  Proceedings  in  both  these  cases  are  before  the 
superior  court.  County  officers  in  lieu  of  district  officers  levy  and 
assess  in  sufficient  sums  to  secure  the  payment  of  outstanding  debts 
"  not  provided  for  by  previous  assessment."  Whether  the  word  "  pro- 
vided "  means  so  far  taken  care  of,  against  possible  delinquency,  as 
to  have  resulted  or  proved  likely  to  result  in  funds  sufficient  to  pay 
the  obligations  of  the  district  may  be  a  matter  for  judicial  interpre- 
tation. 

Colorado. — Cooperation  with  the  United  States  in  Colorado  has 
now  been  authorized  not  merely  under  the  reclamation  law,  but  un- 
der any  act  of  Congress  (ch.  142,  pp.  469^75).  The  same  statute 
makes  a  provision  novel  in  irrigation  district  law  in  condemnation 
proceedings.  Where  the  awards  in  condemnation  exceed  $25,000 
sufficient  time  must  be  accorded  by  the  courts  to  permit  of  an  elec- 
tion to  determine  whether  the  property  shall  be  acquired,  and,  if  the 
electors  authorize  payment,  further  time  is  to  be  given  for  assess- 
ment to  meet  the  award. 

An  alternative  method  for  dissolution  is  provided  in  addition  to 
those  already  authorized.  Whenever  for  five  successive  years  a  dis- 
trict has  failed  to  transact  business  for  which  it  was  formed,  or  has  , 
failed  to  keep  up  its  organization  or  to  appropriate  water  upon 
district  lands,  it  may  be  clissolved  upon  petition  by  any  five  electors 
addressed  to  the  district  court.  Notice  is  given  requiring  the  owners 
and  creditors  to  appear  and  show  cause  why  dissolution  should  not 
be  granted.  Service  is  had  personally  or  by  publication.  The  pro- 
ceedings are  in  rem  and  the  court  has  power  to  order  district  prop- 
erty sold  for  the  benefit  of  creditors  and  to  provide  for  the  payment 
of  all  district  debts  by  such  sales  or  by  flat  rate  assessment.  The 
law  does  not  seem  to  deprive  the  court  of  jurisdiction  under  the 
circumstances  named  to  dissolve  the  district  without  providing  for 
payment  in  full.  Individual  landowners  can  discharge  their  lands 
from  all  district  liabilities  by  making  payment  of  such  assessment 
as  may  be  made  against  their  lands.     (Chs.  476-480.) 

Colorado  has  enacted  a  rather  novel  drainage  law.  Two-thirds 
of  the  voters  of  the  district,  each  of  whom  owns  five  acres  or  more, 
and  has  paid  in  full  his  irrigation  district  taxes,  may  petition  for 
drainage,  whereupon  the  district  officers  have  the  same  powers  for 
drainage  purposes  as  they  are  given  by  law  for  irrigation  to  ^he 
extent  that  the  drainage  is  necessitated  by  irrigation  carried  on 
pursuant  to  irrigation  clistrict  laws.     Preferential  right  is  given  to 


CHANGES  IX  lEEIGATIOlSr  DISTRICT  LAWS  IX  1919.  167 

the  district  in  waters  flowing  in  or  collected  and  conveyed  b}^  drain- 
age Avorks  constructed  in  the  lands  of  the  district.  Lands  drained 
are  to  be  reinstated  upon  the  tax  roll  and  lands  lying  outside  of  the 
district  which  are  benefited  by  drainage  may  be  assessed  for  irri- 
gation and  drainage  purjioses  and  required  to  meet  a  proportion 
of  the  irrigation  district  bonded  indebtedness  and  of  the  costs  of 
drainage.     (Ch.  144,  pp.  481,  482.) 

Idaho. — Detailed  procedure  relative  to  foreclosure  of  irrigation 
district  liens  is  provided  hy  chapter  61,  pages  192-195. 

An  almost  complete  substitute  for  the  former  statute  governing 
the  consolidation  of  two  or  more  irrigation  districts  has  been  fur- 
nished by  chapter  120,  pages  405-407.  Where  the  smaller  district 
is  not  more  than  one-tenth  of  the  larger  district  consolidation  is 
initiated  by  the  preparation  of  a  contract  draft,  followed  by  an  elec- 
tion by  the  smaller  irrigation  district  electors,  which  must  carry  by 
two-thirds  vote.  There  is  then  a  petition  to  the  larger  district, 
which  proceeds  in  the  same  way  as  in  the  ordinary  petition  for  the 
annexation  of  lands  to  the  district.  The  procedure  must  be  con- 
firmed in  the  courts. 

The  stattite  providing  for  dissolution  set  forth  above  (p.  113) 
has  been  modified  to  provide  parallel  methods  for  the  transfer  of 
water  rights  and  canal  system  of  an  irrigation  district.  (Ch.  36,  pp. 
132-135.)  Other  amendatory  provisions  will  be  found  as  follows: 
Chapter  16,  pages  79-80;  chapter  141,  page  436;  chapter  115,  pages 
401,  402,  and  chapter  15,  page  78. 

Montana. — This  State  has  enacted  an  additional  statute  for  the 
•exclusion  of  such  areas  as  from  their  location  or  conformation  can 
not  be  successfully  irrigated  by  the  district  or  the  cost  of  irrigating 
which  will  become  burdensome  to  the  landowners  of  the  district. 
Petition  to  the  district  court  for  exclusion  must  be  signed  by  a  ma- 
jority in  number  of  the  holders  of  the  land  included  in  the  district 
representing  a  majority  of  the  acreage  thereof.  Notice  of  hearing 
is  given  and  the  court  is  authorized  to  make  the  change  of  boundaries 
reauested. 

Dissolution  of  an  irrigation  district  is  provided  by  section  3  of 
the  same  law  (p.  172).  Whenever  a  district  has  failed  to  secure  an 
irrigation  system  and  all  indebtedness  of  the  district  has  been  paid, 
dissolution  may  be  granted  by  the  district  court  upon  a  petition 
signed  by  the  same  number  of  holders  of  land  as  are  required  in  case 
of  a  petition  for  organization.  The  court  must,  however,  find  that 
all  indebtedness  has  been  discharged. 

Cooperation  is  now  authorized  with  the  United  States  not  merely 
under  the  reclamation  act  but  under  any  act  of  Congress.  Recogni- 
tion of  drainage  work  by  irrigation  districts  has  been  made  more 
comprehensive  and  the  features  with  reference  to  the  apportionment 
of  assessments  in  40-acre  subdivisions  and  providing  for  relief  from 
further  assessment  which  were  objected  to  above  (see  p.  57)  have 
been  eliminated  by  chapter  116,  pages  235-245. 

At  the  extraordinary  session  of  1919  an  irrigation  district  hiAv, 
so  called,  was  enacted  authorizing  the  Montana  irrigation  commis- 
sion to  perform  many  fundamentally  important  functions  in  con- 
nection with  such  districts.  The  type  of  district  resulting  is  not  a 
form  of  self-governing  local  nnmicipality  and  for  such  reason,  inter- 
esting as  the  law  undoubtedly  is,  it  falls  somewhat  outside  of  the 


168  HAIsTDBOOK   OF   lEEIGATIOlsr  DISTRICT  LAWS. 

scope  of  tlie  present  work.     (Ch.  14,  p.  40,  extraordinary  session^ 
1919.) 

Nebraska. — Changes  as  to  minutia  in  the  work  of  collection  and  in 
the  duties  of  the  county  treasurer  as  ex  officio  district  treasurer  have 
been  made  by  chapter  110,  pages  269-272.  The  law  has  also  been 
amended  by  chapter  111.  page  273. 

Nevada.- — This  State  has  enacted  a  complete  substitute  irrigation 
district  law  in  chapter  64,  pages  84  to  115.  This  act  makes  many 
changes  in  the  previous  law,  most  of  which  are  of  a  minor  character. 
Bonds  mature  seriall}^,  but  shall  not  run  for  more  than  20  years  and 
may  draw  interest  at  not  exceeding  6  per  cent  per  annum.  (L.  1919, 
93.)  The  provisions  for  cooperation  with  the  United  States  are 
removed  from  individual  sections  throughout  the  act  and  combined, 
much  as  in  the  case  of  a  separate  act  for  such  purpose  in  California, 
in  several  sections.     (Sees.  55  to  65,  pp.  108  to  114.) 

The  undemocratic  method  of  voting  criticized  above  (see  p.  127) 
has  been  abrogated  by  the  new  law  and  any  person,  male  or  female, 
21  years  of  age  or  over,  whether  a  resident  of  the  district  or  not,  who 
is,  or  has  declared  his  intention  to  become,  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  and  who  is  a  bona  fide  holder  of  title,  or  evidence  of  title, 
is  an  elector  of  the  district  and  is  entitled  to  but  one  vote.  (Sec.  8, 
p.  89.) 

The  assessment  provisions  above  referred  to  (p.  128)  have  been 
combined  with  a  provision  that  the  benefits  from  undertakings  for 
which  special  assessments  are  made  may  either  be  distributed  equally 
over  the  lands  or  especially  apportioned  when  such  course  is  author- 
ized in  the  election  therefor.  It  is  also  provided  that  either  assess- 
ments or  tolls,  in  so  far  as  imposed  for  operation  and  maintenance, 
may  be  chargeable  by  wa}^  of  a  minimum  stated  charge  per  acre 
whether  the  water  is  used  or  not.  with  an  excess  charge  for  use  of 
water  above  the  amount  delivered  at  the  minimum  rate.  (Sec.  17, 
p.  94.) 

It  is  provided  that  where  drainage  works  are  to  be  constructed 
benefits  may  be  apportioned  to  higher  lands  not  then  actually  requir- 
ing drainage  "  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  their  irrigation  contributes 
water  which  must  be  carried  off  or  away  from  lower  lands."  (Id. 
p.  95.) 

Chapter  188  has  provided  for  cooperation  by  agreement  with  ad- 
joining irrigation  districts  in  other  States  for  joint  construction, 
acquisition,  and  management  of  irrigation  or  drainage  works.  The 
agreements  may  provide  for  joint  or  several  ownership  or  owner- 
ship in  common  of  the  necessary  property  (p.  338). 

Neio  Mexico. — This  State  has  created  two  classes  of  irrigation  dis- 
tricts by  1919  statutes.  One  comprising  districts  not  cooperating 
with  the  United  States,  and  the  other  districts  formed  to  cooperate 
Avith  the  Federal  Government.  Both  statutes  run  along  lines  similar 
to  those  of  the  previous  law  (pp.  130  to  135).  They  constitute  a  com- 
plete substitute  for  the  former  law. 

Referring  first  to  chapter  41  which  relates  to  irrigation  districts 
in  general : 

The  clauses  expressly  giving  the  authority  to  develop  power  and 
permitting  the  promotion  of  agricultural  resources  and  market  fa- 
cilities (see  p.  131)  have  been  omitted  (sec.  1,  p.  91).  There  has  been 
a  slight  change  in  the  phraseology  as  to  the  acreage  wliich  must  be 


CHANGES  I]Sr  IRPJGATIOX   DISTRICT  LAWS  IN  1919.  169 

represented  on  the  petition  for  oroanization.  Tlie  former  require- 
ment was  that  the  area  represented  must  be  a  majority  of  tlie  acres 
belonging  to  resident  freeliolders  (inchiding  entrymen),  Avhereas 
the  new  laAv  requires  a  majorit\-  of  tlie  total  acreage  within  the  dis- 
trict. Eeferences  to  the  Smith  ^Vct  have  been  eliminated  from  this 
law,  possil)ly  Avith  the  erroneous  view  that  this  act  (see  ante  p.  23 
to  24)  related  only  to  districts  which  cooperated  with  the  United 
States.  Other  districts,  however,  have  the  same  privilege  of  in- 
cluding unentered  public  lands  under  the  Smith  Act,  and  the  State 
statute  for  irrigation  districts  in  general  might  best  refer  thereto. 
The  change  of  phraseology  would  make  it  difficult  to  organize 
wherever  the  area  of  unentered  public  land  is  considerable. 

The  statute  also  gives  the  vote  to  corporations  and  associations. 
(Sec.  3,  pp.  92,  93.) 

Organization  for  this  class  of  districts  is  authorized  if  two-thirds 
of  the  qualified  electors  actually  voting  at  the  election  favor  the 
district.  This  is  an  easier  requirement  than  that  before  imposed. 
The  plan  for  mailing  ballots  (see  p.  132)  is  omitted.  Sees.  5  and  6, 
pp.  94  and  95.) 

These  districts  have  been  authorized  to  construct  drainage  works 
and  to  issue  bonds  for  such  purpose  witliout  previous  offer  of  the 
same  for  sale,  but  no  contract  for  more  than  $10,000  or  involving 
annual  payments  exceeding  $15,000  is  binding  unless  authorized  by 
written  consent  of  a  majority  of  the  electors  of  the  district  accord- 
ing to  the  vote  cast  at  the  last  election.  Contracts  in  excess  of 
$25,000  per  annum  require  an  election.     (Sec.  12,  p.  99.) 

The  requirement  for  the  authorization  of  bonds  is  higher  than  in 
most  States.  A  majority  of  the  qualified  electors  must  vote  favor- 
ablv.  (Sec.  15.  p.  101.)  Refunding  bonds  are  now  expressly  pro- 
vided for.     (Sec.  16.  p.  103.) 

Turning  now  to  the  act  authorizing  districts  to  cooperate  with 
the  United  States : 

The  very  high  Tequirement  at  the  election  for  organization  out- 
lined above  (p.  131),  together  with  the  plan  for  receiving  mailed 
ballots,  has  been  retained.     (Sec.  6,  pp.  33  to  33.) 

The  board  of  directors  estimates  for  assessments  for  all  purjjoses, 
with  allowance  for  earlier  deficiencies.  Not  less  than  one-fourth  nor 
more  than  two-thirds  of  the  operation  and  maintenance  costs  shall 
be  collected  by  assessment  upon  all  district  lands  unless  exempt, 
whether  irrigated  or  not.  and  the  remainder  of  the  operation  and 
maintenance  funds  is  collected  from  the  landowners  actually  using 
water.  Lands  which  are  unfit  for  cultivation  on  account  of  seepage 
or  other  conditions  are  not  taxable  for  bonded  indebtedness  or  for 
operation  charges,  and  whether  such  tracts  are  taxable  for  payments 
to  the  United  States  is  dependent  upon  the  directors  or  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  or  may  be  ]:)rovided  by  contract.  It  is  provided,  how- 
ever, that  payment  in  full  to  all  creditors  of  district  indebtedness 
shall  be  made  irrespective  of  all  exemptions  unless  otherwise  pro- 
vided by  agreement.     (Sec.  21,  pp.  44  to  47.) 

Districts  organized  under  the  general  law  niav  come  under  this 
law  after  contract  has  been  made  for  coopiirration  with  the  United 
States.     (Sec.  59,  p.  62.)        _ 

Oregon. — Irrigation  districts  may  turn  over  to  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment lands  owned  or  controlled  by  the  district  for  the  purpose  of 


170  HANDBOOK   OF   lEEIGATIOISr   DISTRICT   LAWS. 

having  the  same  developed  and  colonized  by  any  agency  of  the 
Unitecl  States,  and  assessments  for  repayment  to  the  Government  of 
the  amomits  expended  with  interest  not  to  exceed  6  per  cent  may  be 
levied.  (Ch.  146,  p.  203.)  To  carry  out  this  plan  any  irrigation  dis- 
trict may  accejDt  from  a  landowner  title  to  part  of  his  holdings  and 
allow  reasonable  credit  therefor  upon  the  reclamation  charge  against 
the  remaining  portion  retained  by  such  owner,  but  no  credit  shall  be 
allowed  great  enough  to  entirely  extinguish  the  reclamation  charge 
against  any  land  in  the  district,  and  this  feature  of  the  law  is  de- 
pendent upon  a  contract  with  the  United  States  for  the  development 
of  the  lands  having  first  been  executed. 

The  assessment  methods  have  been  modified  by  provision  for  the 
division  of  the  district  into  units  and  apportionment  in  accordance 
with  units.  Prior  to  the  completion  of  the  works  assessment  may  be 
made  as  appears  equitable  to  the  directors  subject  to  the  right  of 
district  landowners  to  require  adjustment  by  the  board  of  equaliza- 
tion and  subject  to  appeal.  Reclamation  and  assessment  by  units 
must  first  be  approved  by  the  State  engineer.     (Ch.  146,  p.  204.) 

Property  acquired  by  any  district  no  longer  necessary  for  district 
purposes  may  be  sold  either  at  private  or  public  sale  and  the  district 
officers  are  authorized  to  make  conveyance.     (Ch.  138,  p.  193.) 

The  provisions  for  the  confirmation  of  bond  issues  and  other  pro- 
ceedings have  been  reworked  and  made  applicable  also  to  drainage 
districts  without  very  material  change  having  been  made.  (Ch.  390, 
pp.  693,  694.) 

The  procedure  for  the  certification  .of  irrigation  district  bonds  has 
been  broadened  so  as  to  include  drainage  district  bonds  and  the 
entire  statute  for  such  purpose  enacted  anew.  (Ch.  305,  pp. 
554-558.) 

Utah. — This  State  has  passed  a  complete  irrigation  district  act, 
constituting  a  substitute  for  previous  laws,  in  the  enactment  of  chap- 
ter 68  (pp.  204-241),  without  having  modified  the  former  law  as 
amended  in  1917  (see  p.  151)  in  any  very  radical  way.  The  follow- 
ing will  outline  the  most  important  departures: 

The  authority  to  lease  water  to  occupants  of  public  lands  (see 
p.  153)  has  been  omitted  from  the  1919  act. 

More  than  ordinarily  complete  provision  has  been  made  for  the 
procedure  in  connection  with  irrigation  district  warrants  and  the 
mode  of  providing  for  current  incidental  expenses.  Negotiable  notes 
of  the  district  are  authorized  to  be  issued  for  current  exj)enses.  (Sec. 
23,  p.  226.) 

The  new  law  has  also  revived  the  usual  prohibition  of  excess  lia- 
bility (see  p.  34)  with  the  addition  of  a  clause  authorizing  warrants 
or  notes  for  certain  exjjenditures.  (Sec.  26,  p.  227.)  Provisions  for 
changes  in  boundaries  have  been  made  more  comprehensive.  (Sees. 
29  to  44,  pp.  228-232.) 

Provision  has  been  made  for  the  transfer  of  water  rights  and  other 
property  after  notice  where  consent  of  the  creditors  is  given  unless 
one-third  of  the  water-right  owners  protest.  (Sec.  53.  p.  235.)  Irri- 
gation district  bonds  and  other  securities  are  exempted  from  taxation 
within  the  State.     (Sec.  54,  p.  236.) 

State  lands  may  be  included  in  districts  upon  petition  of  the  State 
board  of  land  commissioners,  but  are  not  subject  to  taxation  while 
held  by  the  State,  but  contract  between  the  State  and  the  district 


CHANGES  IX  IRRIGATIOX  DISTRICT  LAWS   IX   1919.  171 

boards  in:iy  i)i'ovide  for  annual  payment  for  district  expenditures,  a . 
water  ri^-ht  beino-  thus  secured  for  State  lands.     (Sec.  55,  p.  2;^)0.) 

Utah  has  pro\  ided  for  local  inii)r<)\('inent  districts  in  comprehen- 
sive manner.  (Sees.  56-63,  pp.  236-24:0.)  The  holders  of  title  or 
evidence  of  title  to  one-fourth  of  the  acreage  proposed  to  be  as- 
sessed for  any  special  or  local  imj^rovcment  may  file  a  petition  with 
the  directors.  An  investigation  follows,  and  if  the  cost  of  the  pro- 
posed local  work  he  excessive  or  the  security  insufficient,  or  a  protest 
signed  by  a  nuijoi'ity  of  the  holders  within  the  proposed  local  cbs- 
trict  be  filed,  the  Ijoard  must  dismiss  the  ])etition.  If  the  contrary 
appears,  hearing  is  had  after  due  notice,  the  boundaries  of  the  local 
improvement  district  are  settled,  and  the  work  proceeds.  If,  how- 
ever, the  cost  is  to  exceed  $10,000  and  is  less  than  $25,000,  Avritten 
authorization  must  be  made  by  a  majority  of  the  holders  within  the 
local  district.  If  the  cost  is  to  exceed  the  latter  figure,  two-thirds 
of  the  holders  within  the  local  improvement  district  must  ratify,  but 
in  such  case  if  a  majority  of  the  voting  electors  of  the  district  at 
large,  according  to  the  ^•otes  cast  at  the  bist  election,  protest  in  writ- 
ing within  30  clays  after  the  completion  of  the  notice,  the  work  shall 
not  be  undertaken. 

The  cost  of  the  improvement  is  paid  by  warrants  of  the  district 
bearing  interest  not  to  exceed  7  per  cent.  (Sees.  57,  5S,  pp.  237,  238,; 
The  directors  assess  the  benefits  and  award  damages,  and  the  county 
commissioners  act  as  a  board  of  equalization  upon  local  improvement 
district  benefits.  Assessments  are  made  and  levied  in  accordance 
therewith.  Districts  may  contract  with  the  United  States  for  local 
improvement  work,  and  confirmation  is  provided  in  the  case  of  in- 
debtedness for  such  purposes  in  the  same  manner  as  in  other  cases. 
(Sec.  63,  p.  239.) 

If  after  the  district  has  become  indebted  it  shall  become  insolvent 
and  fail  to  maintain  its  organization,  and  for  more  than  two  years 
shall  fail  to  pay  its  bonded  or  other  indebtedness,  the  district  court 
shall,  under  its  equity  powers,  have  jurisdiction  to  appoint  a  com- 
missioner to  take  charge  of  the  property  of  the  district  and  to  sell 
and  dispose  of  the  same  for  the  benefit  of  creditors  and  close  up  the 
affairs  of  the  district  under  the  direction  of  the  court.  (Sec.  61,  p. 
210.) 

Washington.- — Chapter  180,  pages  527  to  551,  has  made  several  im- 
portant changes  in  the  Washington  law.  . 

State  lands  have  been  rendered  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the 
irrigation  district  law  tqoon  the  consent  of  the  commissioner  of  pub- 
lic lands,  if  he  shall  find  that  the  same  will  be  benefited  by  inclusion 
in  the  district  and  shall  assent  thereto  in  writing.  State  lands  thus 
included  are  not  to  be  sold  for  delinquent  assessments,  but  the 
amount  is  charged  to  the  lands  benefited  and,  if  payment  be  not 
made,  the  State  auditor  at  the  next  session  of  the  legislature  must 
certify  to  the  legislature  the  amount  of  the  assessments,  and  pro- 
vision for  the  payment  of  the  same  with  interest  shall  be  made  out 
of  the  general  fund  of  the  State.     (Sec.  2,  pp.  530,  531.) 

The  provisions  relative  to  condemnation  proceedings  have  been 
amplified  and  combined  with  consideration  of  the  benefits  to  be  de- 
rived from  the  district  works.  Judgment  is  entered  for  the  excess 
damages  over  the  benefits  if  any.     The  damages  allowed  but  not 


172  HAI^DBOOK   OF   IKEIGATIOX   DISTRICT  LAWS. 

paid  are  applied  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  levies  against  the  lands 
in  question.     (Sec.  6,  p.  538.) 

The  improvement  district  law  adopted  in  1917  has  been  somewhat 
reworked.  Provision  is  made  for  change  of  the  boimdaries  of  the 
local  improvement  district  and  assessment  of  newly  included  lands 
for  costs.     (Sec.  16,  p.  548.) 

Consolidation  of  two  or  more  irrigation  districts  has  been  pro- 
vided for  (sees.  6461-1  to  6461-5,  pp.  549  to  554),  petition  to  be 
signed  by  50  or  a  majority  of  the  holders  of  title  to  lands  suscepti- 
ble of  irrigation  within  the  proposed  consolidated  district.  The 
petition  must  be  presented  to  the  county  commissioners,  and  the 
organization  proceedings  go  forward  in  the  same  fashion  as  pre- 
scribed for  the  case  of  an  ordinary  irrigation  district.  The  county 
commissioners,  however,  call  no  election  if  it  appear  that  any  board 
of  directors  of  a  district  proposed  to  be  included  has  passed  an 
adverse  resolution. 

The  election  for  organization  will  not  suffice  unless  each  district 
to  be  included  shall  favor  consolidation  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the 
electors  casting  ballots  and  unless,  furthermore,  the  land  not  previ- 
ousl}"  organized,  if  any  be  proposed  to  be  included,  shall  likewise 
favor  the  district  by  a  two-thirds  vote. 

After  tlie  directors  of  a  consolidated  district  qualify  they  succeed 
to  the  duties  of  the  former  boards,  the  districts  merged  retaining 
their  existence  so  far  as  necessary  to  perform  contracts  and  discharge 
indebtedness.  The  directors  of  the  consolidated  district  may  con- 
stitute each  included  district  a  local  improvement  district  of  the 
larger  -corporation.  Separate  funds  shall  be  maintained  for  each 
district  until  the  officers  of  the  consolidated  district  shall  discharge 
all  obligations  of  the  former  districts.  (Sec.  20,  amending  6461-3, 
pp.  551,  552.) 

It  is  further  provided  that  the  consolidation  shall  not  impair  any 
obligations  of  any  district  included  and  that  the  creditors  shall  be 
entitled  to  all  remedies  as  though  no  consolidation  had  been  effected. 
All  prior  obligations  shall  be  a  prior  lien  to  that  of  any  obligation 
undertaken  bv  the  consolidated  district.  (Sec.  21,  amending  sec. 
6461-4,  p.  553.) 

The  property  of  the  districts  consolidated,  subject  to  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  district,  become  the  property  of  the  consolidated  district, 
equitable  credit  being  given  therefor  to  the  lands  of  the  included 
district  formerly  possessed  of  such  property. 

At  the  hearing  upon  the  petition  for  organization  of  an  irrigation 
district  tlie  State  hydraulic  engineer  is  required  to  sit  with  the  board 
of  county  commissioners  in  an  advisory  capacity.     (Sec.  1,  p.  528.) 

Eights  of  waj'  have  been  granted  to  irrigation  districts  over  State 
lands  after  due  showing  to  the  board  of  State  land  commissioners. 
(Ch.  97,  p.  232.) 

Wj/omivr/. — In  the  text  above  (p.  21)  the  statement  was  made 
that  Wyoming  had  made  no  provision  for  cooperation  between  irri- 
gation districts  and  the  United  States,  and  also  (p.  161)  that  in  that 
State  it  was  impossible  to  compel  a  minority  of  landowners  to 
submit  to  public  improvement  by  irrigation.  Both  of  these  points 
have  been  remedied  by  chapter  142,  pages  223-242.     Wyoming  has 


CHAXGES  IX  lERlGATIOX  DISTRICT  LAWS  IX  1919.  173 

now  made  practically  the  same  provisions  for  cooperation  with  the 
United  States  wliicli  are  outlined  above  on  page  -21.  The  powers 
include  drainage. 

The  former  change  has  been  effected  by  the  amendment  of  sec- 
tions throughout  the  law,  while  the  latter  is  brought  about  by  sec- 
tion 3  (pp.  225-227).  The  necessity  for  mailing  notice  of  election 
for  organization  to  nonresident  electors  has  been  injected.  The 
definition  of  who  shall  be  electors,  freeholders,  and  eiitrymen  is  clari- 
fied. Those  who  are  citizens  or  persons  who  have  taken  out  their 
first  papers  are  electors.     (Sec.  2,  pp.  223-225.) 

An  important  amendment  has  been  made  in  section  833  of  the 
Compiled  Statutes  (sec  3a,  p.  227)  by  a  clause  requiring  that  thg' 
organization  election  must  not  merely  carry  by  a  majority  of  the  legal 
electors  of  the  district  but  that  such  majority  shall  be  the  owners  in 
the  aggregate  of  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  acres  within 
the  district.  This  provision  sets  up  a  very  difficult  standard  for 
the  sentiment  in  favor  of  organization,  particularly  if  there  are  areas 
of  unentered  land,  as  is  likely  under  the  Smith  Act.  (See  ante, 
p.  24.)  While  nonresident  owners,  a;s  already  outlined  (p.  KU).  are 
entitled  to  cast  their  ballots,  it  is  difficult  to  secure  the  actual  vote 
of  a  majority  representing  the  majority  of  the  acreage. 

The  express  powers  to  lease  the  use  of  water  together  with  the 
right  to  assign  one's  use  of  water  for  the  current  year,  outlined 
above  (p.  162),  have  been  removed.     (Sec.  4,  p.  228.) 

Where  drainage  work  is  taken  up  with  the  Federal  Government 
cooperatively,  the  directors  determine  the  benefits  to  each  tract 
and  the  amounts  as  apportioned  remain  the  basis  for  fixing  annual 
assessments  for  drainage  purposes  except  as  outlined  below.  Notice 
of  hearing  upon  the  apportionment  is  prescribed.  If  objection  be 
made  and  overruled  the  same  is  deemed  appealed  to  the  district 
court  upon  the  confirmation  proceedings.  The  board  must  petition 
for  an  adjudication  of  the  apportionment  of  drainage  benefits,  and 
the  decree  thereupon  is  final  unless  later  showing  of  manifest) 
injustice  be  shown  upon  grounds  not  ascertainable  at  the  time  of 
the  .original  confirmation  proceedings.  Decree  by  way  of  modifica- 
tion rendered  after  August  1  of  any  year  is  ineffective  for  such 
year.  Any  decree  modifying  the  apportionment  must  provide  such 
readjustment  as  may  be  necessary  for  a  sufficient  levy  promptly  to 
discharge  the  liabilities  of  the  district  for  drainage  purposes  with 
security  to  the  creditors  equal  to  that  afforded  by  the  original 
apportionment.     (Sec.  7,  p.  232,  and  sec.  21,  p.  240.) 

Warrants  have  been  made  receivable  for  general  fund  taxes  and 
interest  coupons,  and  bonds  are  receivable  for  bond-fund  taxes.  In 
case  of  delinquency,  on  the  request  of  the  directors  the  county  com- 
missioners are  required  to  accept  the  above-described  su})stitutes  to 
the  extent  of  the  assessment,  remitting  the  interest  and  penalties. 
Somewhat  similar  provision  is  made  in  case  of  tax  sale  certificates 
purchased  by  the  county.     (Sec.  12,  p.  235.) 

Provision  is  made  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  petition  for  annexation  or  exclusion  of  public  lands  of  the 
United  States  or  for  the  organization  of  an  irrigation  district,  shall 
loe  deemed  to  be  the  owner  thereof  for  the  purpose  of  signing  the 
statutory  petitions.     (Sec.  17,  p.  238.) 


174  ha:n^dbook  of  irrigation  district  laws. 

Oregon  Coxstttutioxal  Amexdmekt. 
constitutional  amendment  promoting  districts. 

Oregon. — The  legislature  submitted  to  the  people  of  this  State  a. 
constitutional  amendment  which  was  carried  at  a  special  election 
June  3,  1919.  This  permits  that  the  credit  of  the  State  may  be 
loaned  and  "  indebtedness  incurred  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  2  per 
cent  of  the  assessed  valuation  of  all  property  in  the  State,  for  the 
purpose  of  proA^ding  funds  for  the  payment  by  the  State  of  interest 
for  a  period  not  exceeding  five  years  on  bonds  heretofore  or  here- 
after issued  by  irrigation  and  drainage  districts  organized,  or  to  be 
organized,  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Oregon." 

The  district  must  jfirst  vote  in  favor  of  a  State  contract  at  an  elec- 
tion. The  State  is  represented  by  a  commission  consisting  of  the 
attorney  general,  superintendent  of  banks,  and  the  State  engineer, 
whose  duty  it  is,  as  regards  irrigation  districts,  to  investigate  water 
supply,  soil,  need  of  drainage,  market  value  of  property  to  belong  to 
the  district,  the  irrigable  area,  including  lands  of  private  owners 
under  contract  to  sell,  preferences  to  honorably  discharged  soldiers, 
sailors,  marines,  members  of  the  Army  and  Navy  corps,  and  Red 
Cross  nurses. 

If  the  plan  is  found  feasible  and  contract  is  made,  interest  certifi- 
cates of  indebtedness  are  deposited  with  the  State  by  the  district 
bearing  interest  at  not  exceeding  6  per  cent  and  covering  five  years'" 
interest  on  the  district  bonds.  They  mature  after  the  five  years.  The 
State  sells  bonds  and  pays  the  creditors  of  the  district  the  interest  as 
due.    The  State  guarantees  5  per  cent. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


A. 

Page. 

Abila,  F;illI)nH)k  Tit.  l»ist  v.   (Calif.) 14,49 

Alexandre)  Irr.  L)i.st.,  Stiinsou  v.   (Calif.) 33,35 

Alfalfa  Irr.  Di.st.  v.  Collins  (Nebr.) 12,51,56,68 

Anderson  f.  Grand  Valley  Irr.  Dist.  (Colo.) 51,68 

Anderson,  I'rofiressive  Irr.  Dist.  v.  (Idaho) : 52 

Andrews  r.  Lillian  Irr.  Co.  (Nebr.) 80 

Anthony  r.  Connty  of  Ja.sper   (U.  S.) 37,38 

Avondale  Irr.  Dist.,  Holland  v.   (Idaho) . 17,65 

B. 

Baltes  i;.  Farmers'  Irr.  Dist.  (Nebr.) 14,68 

Barker  et  al.,  Niday  v.  (Idaho) 69,70,72 

Barnuni  v.  Okolona  (U.  S.) 38 

Barstow  v.  Ward  Connty  Irr.  Dist.  (Texas) 15 

Baxter  7;.  Dickinson   (Calif.) 36 

Bissett  V.  Pioneer  Irr.  Dist.   (Idaho) 29 

Bliss  V.  Hamilton  (Calif.) ^ 68 

Board  of  Alfalfa  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Collins  (Nebr.) 12,51,56,68 

Board  of  Directors  of  Modesto  Irr.  Dist.,  Tregea  v.  (U.  S.) 49 

Board  of  Directors  of  Payette-Oregon  Slope  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Peterson  (Oreg. ) 20 

Board  of  Directors  of  Poso  Irr.  Dist.,  Crall  v.  (Calif.) 48,49 

Board  of  Directors  Riverside  Co.,  Calif,  v.  Thompson  (Fed.) 62 

Board  of  Directors  of  South  Side  Irr.  Dist.  Wilder  v.  (Colo.) 15 

Board  of  Directors  of  Wenatchee  Rec.  Dist.  -?'.  Kimball  (Wash.) 49 

Board  of  Middle  Kittitas  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Peterson  (Wash.) 12,67,68 

Board  of  Modesto  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Tregea   (Calif.) 15,47,48,49,66 

Board  of  Supervisors  of  Kern  County,  Nevada  Nat'l  Bank  of  S.  F.  v. 

(Calif.) 62 

BoUes,  Douglas  County  Commissioners  v.  U.  S 17 

Boskowitz  r.  TlKmipson.  Tii)ton  Irr.  Dist.  (Calif.) 63 

Bradbury,  I'ioneer   r.    (Idaho) - 56,57 

Bradley.  Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.  v.   (U.  S.) 11,14,15,50,55,60,66,67,68 

Bradley  v.  Fam)rook  Irr.  Di.st.  (Fed.) 66 

Briggs.  Nampa  &  i\Iei-idian  Irr.  Dist.  v.  (Idaho) 12 

Brose,  Hillcrest  Irr.  Dist.  r.  (Idaho) 23 

Brose,  Nampa  &  INleridian  Irr.  Dist.  r.   (Idaho) 49,51,52,68 

Bro.se  v.  Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  (Idaho) 69 

Brown  Bros.  v.  Columbia  Irr.  Dist.   (Wa.sh.) 12 

Brown,  State  ex  rel  Witherop  v.  (Wash.) 62 

Burt  et  al.  Drainage  Conunissioners  v.  Farmers'  Coop.  Dist.  (Idaho) 31 

C. 

Cannon  v.  Hood  River  Irr.  Dist.   (Oreg.) 57 

Canon,  County  Treasurer,  Eberhart  v.   (Colo.) 65 

Canyon  County  Drainage  Dist.  No.  1  (Idaho) 31 

Carson  v.  Cudworth  (Colo.) 24 

City  of  San  Angelo,  Slmpleigh  v.  (U.  S.) 41 

Colburn  v.  Wilson  et  al.,  Emmett  Irr.  Dist.  (Idaho) 29,62,75 

Collector,  Vineland  Irr.  Dist.,  Baxter  v.   (Calif.) 36 

Collins,  Alfalfa  Irr.  Dist.  v.  (Nebr.) 12,51,56,68 

Colona.  Town  of,  P:aves  v.  (U.  S.) 38 

Columbia  Irr.  Dist..  Brown  Bros.  v.  -(Wash.) 12 

175 


176  TABLE   OF   CASES. 

Page. 

Conway,  Paxton  Irr.  Dist.  v.  (Nebi'.) 34 

Condit  V.  Johnson  (Iowa) 63 

Cooper  Union,  Pompton  v.   (U.  S.) 36 

Corson  v.  Crocker   (Calif.) 62 

County  of  Jasper,  Anthony  v.  (U.  S.) 37,38 

County  of  Sac,  Cromwell  v.  (U.  S.) 38 

Crall  V.  Poso  Irr.  Dist.  (Calif.) 48,49 

Crane,  Hughson  v.  (Calif.) 35,62,74 

Crocker,  Corson  v.    (Calif.) 62 

Cromwell  v.  County  of  Sac  (U.  S.) 38 

Cudworth,  Carson  v.    (Colo.) 24 

D. 

Dallas  County  Levee  District  v.  Looney  (Tex.) 56 

Danby  v.  Starlight  Irr.  Dist.   (Oreg.) 47 

Dickinson.  Baxter  v.   (Calif.) 36 

Douglas  Coxmty  Comnvissiouers  t\  Bolles  (U,  S.) 17 

Douglas  County,  Hayes  v.  (Wis.) 18 

Drainage  Commissioners  v.  Farmers'  Coop.  Irr.  Dist.   (Idaho) 31 

Drainage  District  No.  1  of  Canyon  County  (Idaho) 31 

Dyersburg,  Town  of,  Norton  v.  (U.  S.) 37 

E. 

East  Riverside  Irr.  Dist,  Wright  v.  (Fed.) 38 

Eaves,  Town  of  Colona  t:.   (U.  S.) 38 

Eberhart  v.  Canon,   County  Treasurer    (Colo.) 65 

Edes  V.  Haley   (Wash.) 14 

Emmett  Irr.  Dist.,  Thompson  v.    (Fed.) 42 

Emmett  Irr.  Dist.,  Wilson  et  al.,  Colburn  v.  (Idaho) 29,62,75 

Equitable  Investment  Co.,  Quiuton  v.   (Fed.) 17 

Escondldo  Irr.  Dist.,  Merchants"  Nafl  Bank  of  San  Diego  v.  (Calif.) ___  40,63 

F. 

Fallbrook   Irr.   Dist.   v.   Abila    (Calif.) 14,49 

Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.,  Bradlev  r.    (Fed.) 66 

Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Bradley  (U.  S.) 11,14,15,50,55,60,67,68 

Farmers  Coop.  Irr.  Dist.,  Burt  et  al.,  Drainage  Commissioners,  v.  ( Idaho )_         31 

Farmers'  Irr.  Dist.,  Baltes   v.   (Nebr.) 14,68 

Fogg  V.  Perris  Irr.  Dist.   (Calif.) 47,51 

G. 

Gallatin    Irr.   Dist.    (Mont.) 12,14,15,24 

Gas  Securities  Co.,  Nile  Irr.  Dist.  v.   (Fed.) 79 

Gas  Securities  Co.,  Shelton  r.    (Fed.) 38 

Gem.  Irr.  Dist.  i?.  Johnson   (Idaho) 23 

Gen.  Irr.  Dist.,  Noon  r.   (Fed.) 71 

Gerlier  r.  Nampa  &  ^Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  (Idaho) 69 

Gibbons  r.  Hood  River  Irr.  Dist.    (Oreg.) 41 

Grand  Yallev  Irr.  Dist.,  Anderson  v.   (Colo.) 51,68 

Grapeland  Irr.  Dist.,  Ham  v.   (Calif.) 37 

Green  City  Irr.  Dist..  Riverside  Reservoir  &  Land  Co.  v.  (Colo.) 21 

Green  River  Irr.  Dist.,  Lundberg  v.   (Utah) 56,68 

H. 

Ha  car  v.  Reclamation  District  (U.  S.) i 11 

Haley.  Edes  v.   (Wash.) 14 

Hall,  Justice  King  in;  r.  Hood  River  Irr.  Dist.  (Oreg.) 35,68 

Ham  r.  Grapeland  Irr.  Dist.  (Calif.) ^_         37 

Hanson  v.  Kittitas  Reclamation  Dist.   (Wash.) 48,51,74 

Harelson  r.  South  San  Joaquin  Irr.  Dist.  (Calif.) 81 

Harris  v.  Tarbet  et  al  (Utah) 40,69,71 


TABLE   OF    CASES.  177 

Page. 

Harris  r.  Tiirhet  et  iiL,  Lo};aii  Trr.  Dist.   (Utah) 40,09,71 

Hayes  v.  Douglas  County   (Wis.) 18 

Haynt's.  Little  Willow  Irr.  Dist.  v.    (Idaho) 48 

Henrylyn  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Thomas   (Colo.) 62 

Herring  v.  Modesto  Irr.  Dist.  (Fed.) 15,18 

Hillcrest  Irr.  Dist.  r.  Bro.se  (Idaho) 2^. 

Holland  v.  Avondale  Irr.  Dist.   (Idaho) ; 17,05 

Hood  Kiver  Irr.  Dist.,  Cannon  i\   ((;)reg. ) 57 

Hood  River  Irr.  Dist.,  (Jibbons  r.   (Oreg. ) 41 

Hood  River  Irr.  Dist.,  Justice  King  in  Hall  v.  (Oreg.) 35,08 

Hughson  V.  Crane   (Calif.) 35,02,74 

I. 

Imperial  Irr.  Dist,  Imperial  Land  Co.  v.  (Calif.) 49.03 

Imperial  Land  Co.  v.  Imperial  Irr.  Dist.  (Calif.) 49,(53 

Indian  Cove  Irr.  Dist.  v.  I'rideaux  (Idaho) 12,23 

Irr.  Dist.,  San  Diego  v.  (Calif.) 39 

J. 

Jasper,  County  of.  Anthony  v.  (U.  S.) 37,38 

Jenison  v.  Redfield    (Calif.) 72 

Johnson,  Condit  v.   (Iowa) 03 

Johnson,  Gem.  Irr.  Dist.  v.  (Idaho) 23 

Justice  King  in  Hall  v.  Hood  River  Irr.  Dist.  (Oreg.) 35,08 

K, 

Kern  County.  Nevada  Xat'l  Bank  of  San  P"'rancisco  v.  (Calif.) 02 

Kerrigan,  Title  &  Doc.  Restn.  Co.  r.  (Calif.) .51 

Kimball,  Board  of  Directors  of  Wenatchee  Rec.  Dist.  v.  (W^ash.) 49 

Kinkade  r.  Witherop  (Wash.) 39.51,08 

Kittitas  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Peterson  (Wash.) 12,07,68 

Kittitas  Rec.  Di.st,  Hanson  r.  (Wash.) 48,51.74 

Knowles  v.  New  Sweden  Ii-r.  I)ist.   (Idaho) 00,08 

L. 

La  Mesa  Holmes  Co.  v.  La  Mesa,  etc..  Irr.  Dist.  (Calif.) 16 

La  Mesa,  etc.  Irr.  Dist..  La  Mesa  Holmes  Co.  v.   (Calif.) 16 

Leeman  v.  Ferris  Irr.  Dist.   (Calif) i 36 

Lillian  Irr.  Dist.,  Andrews  v.   (Nebr.) 80 

Linda  Vista  Irr.  Di.st.,  People  r\  (Calif.) 17,51 

Linda  Vista  Irr.  Dist.,  San  Diego  v.  (Calif.) 07 

Little  Walla  Walla  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Preston  (Oreg.) 08,09 

Little  W^illow  Irr.  Dist.  r.  Haynes  (Idaho) 48 

Logan  Irr.  Dist.,  Tarbet  et  al.,  Harris  r.  (Utah) 40,09,71 

Looney,  Dallas  County  Levee  Dist.  v.  (Tex.) .50 

Lundberg  f.  Green  River  Irr.  Dist.  (Utah) 50,08 

M. 

Madera  Irr.  Dist.  bonds  (Calif.) 12,20,24,55,00.00 

Merchants'  Nat'l  Bank  of  San  Diego  r.  Escondido  Irr.  Dist.  (Calif.) 40,  63 

Middle  Kittitas  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Peterson  (Wash.) 12,07,08 

Miller  v.  Ferris  Irr.  Dist.  (Fed.) 17,41 

Modesto  Irr.  Dist.,  Herring  r.  (Fed.) 15,18 

Modesto  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Tregea   ((Ualif.) 15,47,48,49,00 

Modesto  Irr.  Dist.,  Tregea  v.  (U.  S.) 49 

Montezuma  Valley  Irr.  Dist.,  Norris  r.  (Fed.) 59 

IMc. 

McCord  ^Mercantile  (Jo.  r.  Mclntyre   (Colo.) 11,12,08 

McGuigan,  Wight  r.  (Nebr.) i 15 

Mclntyre,  McCord  Mercantile  Co.  v.  (Colo.) 11,12,08 

100047—20 12 


178  TABLE   OF   CASES. 

N. 

Pagc- 

Nampa  «&  Meridian  In*.  Dist.  r.  Briggs  (Idalio) 12; 

Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  r.  Brose  (Idaho) 49,51,52,68 

Nanipa  «&  Meiidian  Irr.  Dist,  Brose  v.   (Idalio) 69 

Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.,  Gerber  v.  (Idaho) 69 

Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.,  Nampa  r.  (Idaho) 71,73 

Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  I>ist.,  I'etrie  r.  ( U.  S.) 62 

Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Petrip  (Lhiho) 14,23,26,29 

Nampa  r.  Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  (Idalio) 71,73 

Nevada  Nat'l  Bank  of  San  Francisco  v.  Bd.  of  Supervisors,  Kern  County 

(Calif.) 62 

Nevada  National  Bank  v.  Poso  Irr.  Dist.   (Calif.) 24 

New  Sweden  Irr.  Di.st.,  Knowles  v.  (Idaho) 60,68 

Niday  r.  Barlver  et  al.   (Idaho) 69,70,72 

Nile  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Gas  Securities  Co.  (Fed.) 79 

Noble  Ditch  Co.,  Stuart  r.  (Idaho) 29 

Noon  V.  Gen.  Irr.  Dist.  (Fed.) 71 

Norris  r.  Montezuma  Valley  Irr.  Dist.  (Fed.) 5ft' 

Norton  i\  Town  of  Dyersburg  (U.  S.) 37 

O. 

Okolona,  Barnum  v.  (U.  S.) 38 

Onedia  Irr.  Di.st,  Page  v.   (Idaho) 63 

O'Neill  V.  Yellowstone  Irr.  Dist.   (Mont) 13,49,68 

Orchard  Me.sa  Irr.  Dist.,  Rio  (jlrande  Junction  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Colo.) 62,65 

Oregon  Short  Line  R.  R.  v.  Pioneer  Irr.  Di.st.  (Idaho) 57,60 

P. 

Pase  r.  Oneida  Irr.  Di.st  (Idaho) 63 

PaTmdals  Irr.  Dist  r.  Rathke  (Calif.) 49 

I'almer,  Taylor  r.  (Calif.) 67 

Patterson  Co.  Treasurer,  Thomas  r.  (Colo.) 63 

Paxton  Irr.  Dist.  r.  Conway   (Nebr. ) 34 

Payette-Oregon  Slope  Irr.  Dist  v.  Peterson  (Oreg.) 20 

Payette-Oregon  Slope  Irr.  Dist.,  Rathfon  (Oreg.) 12 

People  r.  Linda  Vista  Irr.  Dist.  (Calit) 17,51 

People  r.  Penis  Irr.  Dist   (Calit) 51 

People  f.  Reclamation  Dist  (Calit) 20- 

People  r.  Sacramento  Drainage  Dist.  (Calif.) 20 

People  r.  Selma  District  (Calit) ^__  12,84 

People's  Bank  r.  School  District  (N.  Dak.) 37 

Perris  Irr.  Dist.,  Fogg  i\  (Calit) 47,51 

Pen-is  Irr.  Dist,  Leeman  r.  (Calif.) 36 

Perris  Irr.  Dist,  Miller  i'.   (Fed.) 17,41 

Perris  Irr.  Dist.,  People  r.    (Calif.) 51 

Peterson,  Bd.  of  Dir.  of  Payette-Ore.  Slope  Irr.  Di.st.  v.  Oreg.) 20 

Peterson,  Bd.  of  IMiddle  Kittitas  Irr.  Dist.  v.  (Wash.) 12,67,68 

Petrie,  Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  r.  (Idaho) 14,23,26,29 

Petrie  r.  Nampa  &  Meridian  Irr.  Dist.  (U.  S.) 62 

Pioneer  r.  Bradbury  (Idaho) 56,57 

Pioneer  Irr.  Dist.,  Bissett  v.  (Idaho) 29 

Pioneer  Irr.  Dist.  Ore  Short  Line  R.  R.  r.  (Idaho) 57,60 

Pioneer  Irr.  Dist  r.  Stone  (Idaho) 23,29 

Pioneer  Irr.  Dist  v.  Walker  (Idaho) 20 

Pompton  V.  Cooper  Union  (U.  S.) 36 

Poso  Irr.  Dist.,  Crall  v.  (Calit) 48,49 

Poso  Irr.  Dist..  Nevada  National  ]?ank  v.  (Calit) 24 

Pi-eston,  Little  Walla  Walla  Irr.  Dist  v.  (Oreg.) 68,6.3 

Progressive  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Anderson  (Idaho) 52 

Progressive  Irr.  Dist.,  Smith  r.  (Idaho) 14,15 

Prideaux,  Indian  Cove  Irr.  Dist  r.  (Idaho) .__  12,23 

Q- 

Quinton  r.  Equitable  Inv.  Co.  (Fed.) 17 


TABLE   OF   CASES.  .  179 

R. 

Page. 

Rathfon  v.  Payette-Oreg.  Slope  Irr.  Dist.  (Oreg.) 12 

Rathke,  Palnulale  Irr.  Dist.  v.   (Calif.) 49 

Reclamation  District,  Hagar  v.  (U.  S.) 11 

Reclamation  District.  People  v.  (Calif.) 20 

Redfield,  .Jenison  r.  (Calif.) 72 

Rialto  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Stowell  (Fed.) 30,37,39 

Rio  Grande  .Tuiiction  Ry.  Co.  r.  Orchard  IMesa  Irr.  Dist.  (Colo.) 62,65 

Riverside  Co..  Calif.,  v.  Thompson   (P>d.) 62 

Riverside  Irr.  Dist.,  Wright  v.   (Fed.) 38 

Riverside  Reservoir  &  Laud  Co.  v.  Green  Citj-  Irr.  Dist.  (Colo.) 21 

Rollinger  et  al..  Rothchild  Bros.  v.   (Wash.) 12,13 

Rothchild  Bros.  r.  Kollinger  et  al.  (Wash.) 12,13 

S. 

Sac  County,  Cromwell  ^•.  (U.  S.) 38 

Sacramento  Drainage  Dist.,  People  v.  (Calif.) 20 

San  Angelo,  City  of,  Shapleigli  r.   (U.  S.) 41 

San  Diego  1-.  Irr.  Dist.  (Calif.) 39 

San  Diego  r.  Linda  Vista  Irr.  Dist.   (Calif.) 67 

San  Joaquin  Irr.  Dist.,  llarelson  v.   (Calif.) 81 

San  Joaquin  Irr.  Dist.,  AVigley  v.  (Calif.) 68 

School  District,  People's  Bank  v.  (N.  Dak.) 37 

kelnm  District,  People  r.   (Calif.) 12,84 

Shapleigh  v.  City  of  San  Angelo  (U.  S. ) 41 

Shelton  V.  Gas  Securities  Co.  (Fed.) 88 

Shepard,  Tulare  Irr.  Dist.  v.   (U.  S.) 17.38,41 

Smith  V.  Progressive  Irr,  Dist.   (Idaho) 14,15 

South  San  .Toaquin  Irr,  Dist.   (Calif.) 68 

South  San  Joaipun  Irr.  Dist.,  Harelson  v.   (Calif.) 81 

South  San  Joa(iuin  Irr.  Dist.,  Wiglev  r.   (Calif.) 68 

South  Side  Irr.  Dist.,  Wilder  r.  (Colo.) 15 

Starlight  Irr.  Dist.,  Danby  v.  (Oreg.) 47 

State  ex  rel.  Witherop  v.  Brown  (Wash.) 62 

Stimsou  V.  Alexandro  Irr.  L)ist.   (Calif.) 3.3,35 

Stone,  Pioneer  Irr.  Dist.  v.  (Idaho) 23,29 

Stowell,  Rialto  Irr.  Dist.  v.  (Fed.) 36,  37,  .89 

Stuart  V.  Noble  Ditch  Co.  (Idaho) 29 

Supi^rvisors    of   Kern    Countv,    Nevada    Nat'l    Bank,    San    Francisco    v. 

.  (Calif.)    62 

Supervisors  of  Riverside  County  v.  Thompson   (Fed.) 62 

T. 

Tarbet  et  al„  Harris  r,   (Utah) 40,69,71 

Tavlor  r.  Palmer  (Calif.) 67 

Thomas,  Henrylyn  Irr.  Dist.  v.  (Colo.) 62 

Thomas  r.  I'atterson  Co.  Treasurer   (Colo.) 63 

Thompson  r.  Emmett  Irr.  Dist.   (Fed.) 42 

Thompson,  Supervisors  Riverside  Co..  Calif,  r.   (Fed.) 62 

Thompson,  Tipton  Irr.  Dist.,  Boskowitz  r,    (Calif,) 63 

Tipton  Irr,  Dist.,  Thompson  Collector,  Boskowitz  v.  (Calif,) 63 

Title  &  Doc.  Restn.  Co.  v.  Kerrigan  (Calif.) 51 

Town  of  Colona  r.  Eaves  (U,  S.) 38 

Town  of  Dyer.sburg,  Norton  r,   (U,  S,) 37 

Tregea.  Board  of  Modesto  Irr,  Dist,  v.   (Calif,) 15,47,48,49,66 

Tulare  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Shepard   (U,  S,) 17,38,41 

Ty.son  r,  Washington  Co,  (Nebr,) 60 


Vineland  Irr,  Dist,,  Baxter  r,   (Calif,) 36 


180  INOKX. 

w. 

Page. 
Walker,  Pioneer  Irr.  Dist.  v.  (Idaho) 20 

Ward  Coiintv  Irr.  Dist.,  Barstow  v.   (Tex.) : 15 

Wasliinston  Co.,  Tyson  v.   (Nebr.) 60 

Wenatcliee  Reclamation  Dist.  v.  Kimball  (Wash.) 49 

Wight  v.  McGiiigan   (Nebr.) 15 

Wigley  V.  South  San  Joaquin  Irr.  Dist.   (Calif.) 68 

Wilder  r.  Board  of  Directors  of  South  Side  Irr.  Dist.  (Colo.) 15 

Wilson,  Colburn  v.    (Idaho) 29,62,75 

Witherop,  Kinkade  v.    (Wash.) 39,51,68 

Witherop  ex  rel,  State  (•.  Brown  (Wash.) 62 

Wright  V.  East  Riverside  Irr.  Dist.  (Fed.) 38 

y. 

Yellowstone  Irr.  Dist..  O'Neill  v.   (Mont.) 13,49,68 


INDEX. 


A. 

Page. 

Abstracts  of  tillc,  cxinuiiiatinii  of,  not  necessary 9 

Ad  valorem  nietliod  of  assessment 55-56 

Adams,  Frank,  bulletin  on  California  irrigation  districts 9 

Addenda,  cliaiiyes   in  3919 165-174 

Adjndicati<»n  of  coullrmation  upheld  by  State  courts 50-57 

Adjudication  of  water  rijilits  can  not  be  done  by  districts 69 

Administrators   may   sifn    for   lands,   Nevada 129 

Advantages  of  district  orpnuzation 8-9 

Advertising  for  construction  by  board  of  directors 21 

Advertising  for  construction  work,  Washington 15S 

Agricultural  land,  owners  of,  qualifications  as  voters 19 

Afkali,    rise    of.    mentioned 26 

Allotment  of  water,  survey  and,  I'tah 152 

Amendatory  act.   luiconstilutional,   California 40 

Ancient  civilizations,  place  of  birth 54 

Anglo-Saxon  institutions,  fundamental  principles  of 7 

Annexation    of    contiguous    lands 78 

California    provision 78-79 

Colorado  provision 79 

Election  may  be  held , 7S 

Hearing . 78 

Idaho  provisions 78 

Payments  upon   admission 78-79 

Protest  against  annexation 78 

Annexation.  State  statutes;  California  statutes 78,100 

Idaho    statutes 78, 113 

Nevada    statutes 129 

Texas  statutes 149 

Annexation.     (Sec  aUo  Inclusion  of  lands.) 

Annual  assessments  or  once  for  all L 59 

Annual   meeting  discussed 75 

Annual  reports.  California  statute  on 92 

Annual  reports,  Idaho  statutes ; 109-110 

Annual  report.  Nebraska  statutes , 121 

Antedated  bonds  invalid 38 

Appeal  on  hearing,  Texas 145 

Appeal,  reassessment  of  lands  upheld  on 58-59 

ApF)ellate  i)roceedings  in  confirmation 49 

Apiiortionment  of  assessment  annually  or  once  for  all 59 

Ai»i)oi'tionment  of  assessments.  Montana 167 

Apportionment  of  water,  California 105 

Apportionment  of  water  pro  rata,  Wyoming 162 

Appropriation  of  water,  public  right  to,  Utah 155 

Arid  Lands.  House  Committee  on  Irrigation  of,  list  of  members 2 

Arizona,  outline  of  statutes  of 87-90 

Assessments , 89-90 

Bond.s,  confirmation  of 88 

Bonds  nnist  be  sold  at  certain  price 88 

Confirmation 88 

Cooperation  with  the  Ignited  States 90 

Discharge  of  obligation,  pi'ovision 58 

Dissolution,  petition  for . 90 

Elections  and  electorate 88. 105 

Exclusion  of  lands ^         90 

Federal  law,  activities  under.. 90 

181 


182  INDEX. 

Arizona,  outline  of  statutes  of — Continued.  Page. 

Fi)rniation   of  district 87-88 

Indebte<lness,  district 88 

Inchoate  title  no  bar  to  contract 88 

Judicial  notice  of  existence  of  district 88 

Levees  autliorize<I  to  be  constructed 88 

Recall  applicable  to  irrigation  district 88 

Release  of  lands  on  payment 58 

Assess,  mandamus  for  failure  to G2 

Assessable,  discussion  of  what  lands  are 60 

Assessibility  of  lands  in  irrigation  districts  after  patent 24 

Assessing,  discretion  of  board  in 62 

Assessment  and  levy,  revenue 54-65 

Agencies  for  collection     54 

Apportionment  annually  or  once  for  all 59 

Assessment  laws  valid,  ad  valorem 55-56 

Assessment  of  personal  property,  Texas 56 

Basis  and  measure  of  assessment 54-55 

Duty  to  reassess  lands  upheld  on  appeal 58-59 

Discretion   of   board   on   assessing 62 

Defective    assessment 62-63 

Flat  rate  and  benefit  assessment  held  valid 56-57 

Further  revenue  procedure 65 

Idaho  plans  discussed 59-60 

Legal  bar  removed  in  case  of  irrigation  district 64 

Mandamus  for  failure  to  assess 62 

Nature  of  irrigation  district  lien 63 

Reclamation   Service  liens 64 

Relation  of  irrigation  district  liens  to  titles 63-64 

Relaxation  from  liability  of  district  as  a  whole 57-58 

Situation  under  Federal  farm  loan  act 64 

Special    assessments 65 

State  lands,  assessment  of 60-61 

What  lands  assessable 60 

When  validity  of  assessment  of  lands  may  be  raised 61-62 

Assessment,  discussion  of: 

Ad  valorem  method  of 55-56 

Advantages   of   public 9 

Annually  or  once  for  all 59 

Basis  and  measure  of 54-55 

Changing,  for  payment  on  bonds  previously  issued 41 

Defective 62-63 

High  lands  for  drainage . 30-32 

Payment  by  purchaser 61 

Payment  by   State 60-61 

Special 65 

Assessments,  State  statutes : 

Arizona  lands 89-90 

California  statutes 97 

California  unpatented  lands 24 

California.  State  lands  in 61 

Colorado    statutes 108 

Colorado  patented   lands "24 

Idaho    statutes 110-111 

Idaho  plan,  once  for  all 59-60 

Idaho,  proportion  to  benefit 55 

Kansas    statutes 115 

Jlontana    statutes 115 

Montana   act,   defects   as   regards 57 

Nebraska    statutes 122, 126 

Nebraska,  failure  of 123 

Nevada,  plans  follow  Idaho  plan 60 

Nevada,  payment  by  State 61 

Nevada,  propotion  to  benefit 55 

Nevada,  statutes  and  liability 128, 168 

New  Mexico  statutes 133-134 


INDEX.  183 

Assessments,  State  statutes — Continued.  Page. 

North  Dakota  statutes 136 

North  Dakota,  proportion  to  benefit 55 

Oregon,  changes  in 170 

Oregon  statutes 143 

South  DalvOta.  proportion  to  benefit 55 

Texas  statutes 146 

Texas,  annual 59 

Texas,  additional , 150 

Texas,  exception  to 54 

Utah,  annual,  detetrmiued' 153-154 

Utah,  based  on  water  allotted 55 

Utah  imin-ovement  districts 171 

Washington  statutes 157 

Washington,  proportion  to  benefit 55 

Wyoming  statutes 162-163 

Assessor  and  treasurer,  duties,  Oklahoma . 139 

Assessor,  district,  mention  of 21 

Assessor,  duties  of,  Texas 146 

Assigning  water  privilege,  objections  to 72 

Assignment  of  water  privilege 72 

Assignment  or  lease  of  water,  Utah 152-153 

Attorney,  board  of  directors,  power  to  appoint 21 

Auditor  for  depository  accounts,  Texas 151 

B. 

Bachelor,  not  tax.  for  schools,  discussed 19 

Baer,  John  M.,  member  of  Irrigation  Committee 2 

Ballot,  defective,  may  render  organization  election  void 14 

JBallots,  care  of,  at  organization  election 18 

Barbour,  H.  E.,  California,  member  of  Irrigation  Committee 2 

"  Beneficial-use  "  rule  of  water  distribution 70 

Benefit  assessment  held  valid .. 56-57 

Benefit,  basis  of  assessment,  Washington 157 

lienefit  test,  method  of  assessing 55 

Benefits  assessed  in  Idaho 48,55 

Bids  and  contract,  Idaho  statutes 113 

Bids  for  construction  work,  Washington 158 

Binding  character  of  confirmation  decree 51-52 

Board  of  directors  authorized  to  have  United  States  do  construction 21 

Board  of  directors,  functions  of 20-21 

Board  of  directors,  limitation  of  powers  in  issuing  bonds 34 

TJoard  of  directors.     (Sec  oUo  Powers  and  duties.) 
Board  of  equalization.     (.S'ee  Equalization.) 

Boise  project,  irrigation  district  adjacent  to 22 

Bona  fide  holders  of  bonds  without  notice 37,  38 

Bonded  debts 34-45 

Certification  of  project  feasibility 43^44 

Confirmation  of  bonds I 42 

Discussion  of  unlaw^ful  purposes 35-37 

Effect  of  changes  in  district  upon  bonds 45 

Forms   of  bonds 37 

TSTegotiability  of  bonds 38-39 

Purposes  for  which  bonds  may  be  issued 34-35 

Befunding    bonds 44-45 

Registration  and  certification  of  bonds 42-43 

Retirement  of  bonds  before  maturity ' 44 

Sale  of  bonds 44 

Security  behind  the  bonds 39^0 

Taxation,  immunity  from,  in  California 40 

Terms  of  bonds 37-38 

Various  doctrines  protecting  bondholders 40-42 

Bondholders,   protection   of 40-42 

Bondholders'  protection,  dissolution  California  statute 100 

Bondholders'  protection,  exclusion  California  statue 99 

Bond  with  petition  to  cover  organization 13 


184  IXDEX. 

t 

Bon<;ls,  general  j)r()visions:  Page. 

Additioual,  may  he  issued  by  implication ■ 35 

Antedated,  invalid 38 

Authorization  proceeding  in  rem . 34 

Certificatiou  and  registration 42-43 

Confirmation  of 42 

Form  of 37 

Issuance  of  rules  for 37 

Limitation  of  powers  in  issuing  bonds,  Nebraska  decision 34 

Negotiability    of,    district 38 

Powers  to  issue  in  excess  of  act  prohibited 1 34 

Purposes  for  which  may  be  issued 34-35 

Refunding   of : 44-45 

Registration  of  irrigation  district & 

Retirement  of,  before  maturity 44 

Sale  of 44 

Security  behind  the 39-40 

Terms  of 37-38 

Unlawful  issue  of,  discussed 35-37 

Validity  settled  by  confirmation  decree 18.  47 

Bonds,  State  statutes : 

Arizona,  confirmation 88 

California,  statutes _• 94-96, 165 

California,  authorit.v  for 165 

California,  unlawful  issuance,  decision . 35 

Colorado,  statutes 102-103 

Colorado  to  retire  warrants 105 

Idaho,  statutes 110 

Idaho,  statutes,  bond  sales 112-113 

Kansas,   statutes 115 

Montana,  statutes US 

Montana,  issuance  as  investment 120 

Nebraska,    statutes 34, 122, 125 

Nevada,  statutes 129,168 

New  Mexico,  statutes :: 132-133 

New  Mexico,  authorization 169 

North  Dakota,  statutes 136 

Oklahoma,  statutes 139 

Oregon,    statutes 142-143-170 

Oregon,  as  investments 144 

Oregon,  security  for 40-41 

Oregon,  issuance  of.  additional,  by  implication 35 

South  Dakota,  maturity  and  interest 145 

Texas,  certification  of 148 

Texas,  sale  or  exchange  of 148 

Texas,  refunding 151 

Texas,  United  States  contracts 147 

Utah,  statutes 153 

Washington,  statutes 156 

Wasliingtcm,  election  majority _     156 

Wasshiugton,  lien  on  land _ 156-157 

Wyoming,  statutes 162 

Borrow  money,  power  to,  Oklahoma „r-^^^ 

Boundaries,  changes  in 77-81 

Annexation J_^ 

Election  may  be  held J8 

Hearing -r ^     ^8 

Payments  upon  admission 78-79 

Protest '^S 

Election,  when  necessary ^     81 

Exclusion ■ 79-80 

Exclusion  desired  on  account  of  seepage 80 

Order  by  the  board • 81 

Proceedings  for  exclusion 80-81 

Boundaries,  descriittion  included  in  petition 13 

Boundaries  of  districts  determined  l)y  county  board 14-15 


TXDEX.  185 

Boundaries,  changes  in  State  statutes:  Page. 

K<»uii(laries  decision,  Calilornia 15 

( "(iloiado,  statutes 105 

Idaho,  statutes 113-114 

Mo'.itana,  statutes 117, 167 

Nebraslva,   statutes 124 

New  Mexico,   statutes 134 

New  Mexico,  statutes,  defining 131 

Nortli  Daliota,  statutes 138 

Nortii  Daliota,  subdivisions 135-136 

Ol^laboma,   statutes '. 141 

Texas,  statutes 146 

Utah,  statutes 17(» 

Wasliinfiton,  statutes 1.58, 172 

Brewer,  .Tustice,  on  validity  of  contirniation  decree 49,50,51 

Brown,  Justice,  on  validity  of  confirmation  decree 50 

Burr,  E.  W.,  coauthor  of  ))ook 1 

C. 

California  irrigation  act : .28,101 

California  Irrigation  Board,  mention  and  date  of  act 28 

California  irrigation  districts,  bulletin  by  Frank  Adams  on 9 

California,  outline  of  statutes 90.101,16.5,166 

Amendatory    act    tinconstitutional 40 

Annexation  statutes 78, 100 

Annual  reports,  law  on .92 

Apportionment  of  water 165 

Assessments 61,  97 

Assessments  entered  on  unpatented  lands 24 

Bonds,  authority  for  issuance 165 

Legislative  confirmation 95 

Purpose,  proceedings,  and  terms 95,  96 

T'nlawful  issuance  of 35 

Bondhol<lers,  ]irotection,  dissolution 100 

Bondholders,  protection,  exclusion 99 

Boundary    decision 15 

Certification  of  feasibility  of  project 43-44 

Colorado  River  district  in 101 

Condemnation  and  private  property 92-93 

Confirmation  of  bonds. 49,95-96 

Construction  without  use  of  credit 96 

Contract    limitations 46 

Cooperation  with  the  United  States 96-97 

Debt   limitation : 93-94 

Delinquent-tax    sale 98 

Dissolution : 100.  166 

Distribution   of  water 70,  93 

District  of  over  .500,000  acres 101 

Electors 92 

Electrical  ])ower  development,  authority 165 

Emergency   appropriation 99 

Engineer,  function  and  reports i 91.96 

Equalization    of    assessments 97 

Exclusion  proceedings 81.  99 

Funds,   various 99 

Hearings 91 

Imperial  Valley,  special  problems  of 101 

Improvements  not  assessed  in 55 

Interstate  district  work 82,83,93 

Large  disti-icts 101 

Large  landowners,  early  opposition  of 13 

Leadership,  early  credit  for 11 

Leases 93 

Levy   assessment 97 

Merger  proposition 84 

Modesto  irrigation  districts 90 


186  INDEX, 

California,  outline  of  statutes — Continued.  Page. 

Negrlect  of  assessment 97-98 

Nominations   92 

Officers    ; 92 

Organization    90-91 

Petition  and  election 13,94 

Power  development 33,  73,  93, 165 

Protection  of  bondholders 99, 100 

Railroad    crossing 96 

Recall 92 

Redemption  after  tax  sale 98 

Refunding  bonds,  issuance  of 166 

Special  assessments 99 

Storage  of  water 165 

Swamp-land   drainage  provided 28 

Taxation,   immunity   from 40 

Town  lots,  inclusions  of 15 

Tolls   and    charges 99 

Voters,  qualification  for 20 

Wright  Act,  mention  of 33,34 

Wright-Bridgeford   Act 90 

Carey  Act    lands,  exemption  of,  Wyoming 161 

Carey  Act  projects,  organization  of  irrigation  district  in 75 

Carey  Act  selection  and  settlement  under  Idaho  statutes 109 

Cases,   table   of 175 

Celibacy  encouraged  by  taxation  discussed 19 

Cemetery,  prohibition  of  eminent  domain,  Texas 149 

Certificates  of  election,  delivery  of 18 

Certificates  of  indebtedness,  issued,   Oregon 174 

Certification  and  registration  of  bonds 42-43 

Certification  of  district  bonds,  Oregon 170 

Certification  of  feasibility   in  Oregon 43 

Certification  of  feasibility  of  project,  California 43-44 

Certification  of  project   feasibility 43-44 

Change  in  assessable  area,  Montana  statute 117-167 

Changes    in    boundaries 77-81 

Annexntion  78 

Election  may  be  held 78 

Hearing  78 

Payments  upon  admission 78-79 

Protest "^8 

Election  when  necessary 81 

Exclusion 79-80 

Exclusion  desired  on  account  of  seepage 80 

Proceedings  for  exclusion 80-81 

Order  by  the  board 81 

Charges,  tolls  and 65-66 

Choate,  Joseph  H.,  counsel  in  Fallbrook  case 11 

Cities,  relations  with,  in  districts—, 73-74 

Cities.     (See  Towns.) 

Civic  responsibility  enhanced  by  irrigation 8 

Claims  against  irrigation  district,  method  of  payment 46 

Classification  of  water  rights 69 

Collection  agencies  in  States  vary 54 

Collection,  levy  and,  Nevada  statutes 129 

Collection,  levy  and.  North  Dakota  statutes 136 

Collection  methods  similar  to  those  of  county 65 

Collection  of  district  taxes,  Utah 154 

Collection  of  funds  by  public  assessment,  advantages  of 9 

Collection  of  taxes.     (See  Taxes.) 

Collection  regulations,  Nebraska  statutes 168 

Collections  and  disbursements,  Montana  statutes 119 

Collections  and  disbursements.  New  Mexico  statutes 134 

Collector  of  taxes  provided  for 21 

Colorado  statutes 101-107,  166-167 

Action  by  county  board 102 

Assessments 24,  103 


IlfTDEX.  187 

-Colorado  statutes — Continued.  Page. 

Bonds,  confirmation 10.3 

How  paid ' 103 

Purpose  and  autliorization 102-103 

Refunding  bonds 58,  103 

Boundaries,  cliange  in 105 

Condemnation  of  awards  in  excess  $25,000 166 

Confirmation   of  bond   issue . 103 

Cooperation    witli    the   United    States 166 

Construction    work 103 

Debt,   districts   free   from 106 

Dissolution,  consent  of  creditors 105, 166 

Corporations   may   buy . 106 

Colorado    plan    of . 86-87, 

Continued  assessment  or   apportionment  of  debt 106 

Extinguisliment  of  lien 106 

.Judicial  confirmation 106 

Liquidation  i-equired 106 

Drainage  law 166-107 

Districts  free  from  debt 107 

Elections 102 

Exemptions  from  assesment 104 

Indebtednes  limitations 102 

Levy,  rates  of 104 

Organization  and  other  elections 102 

Petition  for  organization 102 

Purchase  by  corporation 106 

Powers  of  the  board 58-59 

Reassessments    of   lands , 58-59 

Relief  from  assessments 104 

Revenue— assessments 103 

Sale  of  irrigation  systems 107 

Power  of  the  court 107 

Rights   or  creditors 107 

School  lands 60-61 

State  lands,  control  over 108, 104 

Tax  sales,  delinquent 104, 105 

Tolls  and   changes 105 

Warrants,  issue  of,  to  retire  bonds 105 

Colorado  River,  special  district  in  California  for 101 

Commission,    Oregon    Irrigation 174 

Commissioners,  board  of,  Montana  statutes 116 

Committee  on  Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands,  names  of  members 2 

Community  ditchesi,  New  Mexico  statutes 131 

Community  spirit  an  aid  to  good  drainage  regulations 32 

Compliance   with   statutes   in   bond   issues 37 

Conclusion  of  organization  of  irrigation  district 17-18 

Condemnation   and  property,   California   statutes 92-93 

Condemnation  awards  in  excess  of  $25,000,  Colorado 166 

Condemnation  of  public  property  allowed  in  Oregon 74 

Condemnatii)n  powers  of  irrigation  district 33 

Condemnation  proceedings,  Washington 1.56. 171-172 

Confirmation  decree  settles  validity  of  organization  and  bond  issue 18 

Confirmation  of  bonds,  proceedings 42—43 

Confirmation  of  bonds   issued   unlawfully 36-37 

Confirmation  proceedings  in  general 9,  47-52 

Appellate   proceedings 49 

Binding  character  of  decree 51-52 

Effect  of  fraud  upon  confirmation 51 

Federal  Supreme  Court  doubtful  of  decree 49-50 

Jurisdiction    of   court '48-49 

Object    of    proceedings 47 

Scope  of  confirmation 47-48 

State  courts  all  uphold  adjudication 50-51 

Statutory    procedure 4S 

Validity  of  confirmation  iiroceedings 49 


188  INDEX. 

Confirinatiou,  State  statutes-  Page. 

Arizona,    bonds SS 

< 'alironiia,    statutes 9o-9(v 

California,  validity  of 4& 

Colorado,    statutes lOS 

Colorado,    dissolution 10(j 

Idaho,    statutes 48, 112 

Montana,    statutes 118 

JS'ebruska,    statutes 124-125 

Nevada,    statutes 128 

New  Mexico,   statutes 48, 135 

North   Dakota,    statutes 137 

Oklahoma,    statutes 141 

Oregon,    statutes _' 48, 143-144 

Oregon,  statutes,  including  drainage 170 

Texas,    statutes 148 

Utah,   statutes ISa 

Washington,    statutes 159 

Wyoming,    statutes . 164 

Congress,  recognition  of  drainage  by 27 

Congressional  committee  on  irrigation 2 

Consent  of  United  States  to  assessment  of  lands  in  irrigation  district 24 

(Conservation    district    assessment    in    Texas 56 

"  Conservation   districts,"   Texas 147 

Consolidation    or    merger -. 83-84 

Consolidation    of    districts 130 

Consolidation  of  districts,  Idaho 167 

('onsolidation  of  irrigation  districts,  Washington 172 

Consolidation.     (See  Merger.) 

Constitutional  amendment,    Oregon 174 

Constitutional  amendment  on  indebtedness,  Texas 147 

Costitutional  provision  in   regard   to  voting 19-20 

Constitutionality  ditticiUties  in  California  in  early  days 13 

Constitutionality  of,  including  towns  in  irrgation  districts 16 

Costitutionality'of  not  assessing  improvements  in  Nebraska 56 

Constitutionality  of  statutory  limitation  on  time  for  litigation 17 

Consitutionality  of  the  irrigation  district  law 66-68 

Construction  by  c<mtract  or  force  account  optional 21 

( 'onstruction.  cooperative 81 

Cons^truction  work.  State  statutes: 

<  'olorado.    statute 103 

Montana,    statute ''^  lU 

Nebraska,  statute j^^ 

Nevada,  statute  contracts i-^ 

Oklahoma,    statute j^o 

Oregon,   statute  plans |*^ 

Texas,    statute ^_^ 

Texas,    jointly ::'?«> 

Washington,  provisions  as  to  advertising -^^^ 

Without  use  of  credit,  California -J** 

Construction.      (See  also  Cooperation.) 

Contract,  authorized  by  vote  of  the  electors ___----- ^- 

Contract  between  United  States  and  irrigation  district  upheld ^-^ 

Contract  over  .$25,000,  authorized  by  voters •*• 

Contract  under  .$10,000  usually  ratified  by  directors 't-^ 

Contracts,    State  statutes:  ,^ 

California,    contract    limitations    in 

Idalio,  statutes  with  United  States ^!^;i 

Montana,  statutes,  with  United  States ^^^ 

Montijna.    linntations    in ^g- 

North  Dakota,  statutes '^.^ 

North  Dakota,  authorization ■- -—■ -" 

South  Dakota,  authorization  by  vote  of  electors  not  required ~- 

W:i-bington,  statute  limitations  in ^^.,* 

Wyoming,    statutes Z 

Cooperate,  necessity  of  irrigation  farmer  to 


INDEX.  189 

Page. 

CooptTiitiou   .111(1   nierjior,   iuU'idistrict Nl-84 

(Joojierative  (•(iiistnK-tiou . 82 

Distiicts  for  iiitt'i-slnte  projects ^ 82 

CnlifoniiM   statute ." 82-83 

-Mt'tliods  that  of  cooperation  rather  tliau  coriHimte  unity 82 

Joint  action  in  sccui'ln}^-  irriyatiou  works 83 

Merger  or  consolidation : . 83-84 

Overhead   or   reservoir  districts 81 

Oooperarlion,  advantanes  of 53-54 

Cooperation,   intei'state  jiro.ject 82 

Cooperation  rather  than  corporate  unity 82 

<  'ooperation,  State  statutes  : 

Arizona,    statutes 90 

<  'alifornia.  statutes 96,  97 

<'olorado,    statutes 16«> 

Kansas,  cooiierative  construction  by  not  authorized 21 

Montana,  statutes 1G7 

Nevada,   statutes 168 

New  Mexico,  statutes 132,168 

N<u-tli  Dakota,  statutes 137 

Texas,  statutes 145,140 

Wyoming:,  statutes 21, 172-173 

Cooperation  with  United  States  aided  by  State  law 9 

Cooperathui  with  the  Uuited  States 21-26 

Additional   congre  sional   action    desirable 25 

Congressional  act  in  favor  of  districts 21—25 

P"'ederal  lands  in  irrigatiou  districts 23-24 

Provision  in   State  laws . 21-2'> 

Statutory  bar  to  farm  loans  should  be  removed . 25-26 

Corporate  nature  of  irrigation  district 11 

Corporation  as  related  to  irrigation,  the  public . 7-10 

Advantages  of  district  organization 8-9 

District  organization  not  a  panacea 9-10 

Experience  of  the  Federal  Government 10 

Growth  of  the  public  corporation  idea 8 

Irrigation  as  the  fundamental  institution 7-8 

Irrigation  farmer  not  an  individualist 7 

Projects  not  Federal 10 

Corporation  idea,  growth  of  the  public 8 

Corporation,  purchase  b.v,  Colorado  statutes 106 

Corporations.     (See  also  Public  corporations.) 

County  board,  action,  Colorado  statutes 102 

Discretion  in  regard  to  boundaries 15 

Coupons,  interest,  on  bonds 37 

_  Credit,  construction,  without  use  of 96 

"  Creditors  consent  to  dissolution,  Colorado  statutes 105 

Creidtors,  protection  on  dissolution 85 

Responsil)ilities  of  district  and 52 

Cultivation  increased  by  irrigation  district  methods 9 

D. 

Dakota  provisions  for  relaxation  of  liability 58 

Damage  awards  for  drainage 29 

De  facto  corporations,  principles  of,  apply  to  irrigation  districts IS 

Debts,  adjustment  on  dissolution 85-86 

Debts,  apportionment  of,  Coloi'ado  statutes 106 

Debts,    bonded 34-45 

Debts,  limitation.  California  statute ^^~^t 

Debts  of  irrigation  districts 33^7 

Bonded  debts 33-45 

Indebtedness  not  bonded 45-47 

Debts  not  l)onded 45-47 

Warrants 46-47 

Debts,  validity  secured  by  publication 9 


190  INDEX. 

Page. 

DefeetiAe   assessment 62-65 

Delinquency,  denial  of  service  for 71 

Delinquency  tax  list  publication,  Washington 158 

Delinquent  tax  sales : 

California   statute 98 

Colorado  statute 104-105 

Idaho  statute 113 

Montana   statute 120 

Delinquent  tax  sales.      (See  also  Tax  sales.) 

Denial  of  service  for  nonpayment 71 

Depository  for  moneys,  Texas 151 

Dillon,  John  F.,  counsel  in  Fallbrook  case 11 

Directors,  board  of,  functions 20-21 

Disbursements,  collections  and,  Montana  statute 119 

Disbursements,  collections  and.  New  Mexico  statute 134 

Discharge  of  obligation.  Arizona 58 

Discretion  of  board  in  assessing 62 

Discretion  of  county  boards  as  to  boundaries 14 

Dissolution  of  irrigation  districts 84-87 

Adjustment  of  indebtetlness 85-86 

Colorado    plan 86-87 

Creditors  to  be  protected 85 

Express  provisions  necessary 84 

General  outline  of  the  statutes 85 

States  permit  dissolution 84-85 

Two  general  methods  of  procedure 85 

Dissolution  and  modification  of  boundaries 113-114, 167 

Dissolution  proceedings  after  failure  to  transact  business  for  five  years, 

Colorado 166 

Dissolution,  State  statutes : 

Arizona  districts 90 

California  statutes 100, 166 

Colorado  statutes '.  105, 166 

Plan 86-87 

Idaho,  transfer  of  water-rights  on 167 

Montana,  petition   rules 167 

Nebraska    statutes 126 

Nevada    statutes 130 

New   Mexico   statutes 134-135 

North  Dakota  statutes 138 

Oklahoma  statutes 141 

Oregon   statutes 144 

Texas  statutes 149 

Utah   statutes 155, 171 

Washington    statutes 159-160  , 

Wyoming    statutes 164 

Distribution  of  water 69-70 

Distribution  of  water  under  Secretary  of  Interior 22 

Distribution  of  water.  State  statutes : 

California  statutes ^ 70,  93 

Kansas    statutes 115 

Nebraska    statutes 121 

New  Mexico  statutes 133 

Oklahoma  statutes 138-139 

District  officers,  functions  of 20-21 

The  board  of  directors  and  its  functions 20-21 

Other  district  officers 21 

District  organization,  advantages  of 8-9 

Di-strict  organization,  not  a  panacea 9-10 

Districts,  interstate  project 82 

Districts  of  over  .500,000  acres,  California  statutes 101 

Donation  of  rights  of  way 74 

Drainage,  an  engineering  problem 26 

Drainage  assessment  of  high  lands 30-32 

Drainage  benefits,  Idaho  decision  of 31 


INDEX.  191 

Page. 

Drainage  by  irrigation  districts 26-33 

Drainage,  an  ii'rigatioii  necessity 26 

Drainage  district  statutes 27-28 

Doctrine  of  Idalio  courts 2S-2i> 

Experience  of  Federal  service  in  drainage 27 

Idalio  charging  high  lands 30-32 

liTigatioii  (listi-ict  slioiihl  he  used  for  drainage 28 

May  higli  lands  be  assessed  for  drainage  of  low  lands 30 

Kecognition   by  Congress 27 

Security  against  future  seepage  losses '. 32-33 

Situation  of  other  States 32 

Sui)p]y  and  drainage  system  equally  irrigation  works 26 

Drainage  districts,  identity  of  legal  character  with  irrigation  district 11 

Drainage  districts  should  be  included  in  Smith  Act 25 

District  statutes 27-28 

Drainage,  importance  of  revenue  to  pay  for 53 

Drainage,  irrigation  district  may  be  used  for 28 

Drainage  of  high  lands  in  Idaho,  charging  for 30-32 

Drainage  on  reclaniati(,in  projects 27 

Drainage  systems  are  irrigation  works 26 

Drainage  works  are  irrigation  works,  Idaho  decision 28-29 

Drainage,  State  statutes: 

Colorado  statutes 166-107 

Idaho    statutes 28-29,  30, 111-112 

Nebraska  statutes 124 

Nevada,  apportionment  of  benefits 168 

New  Mexico,  drainage  damage  and  assessment  aw'ards  in 29 

New  Mexico  assessments 134, 169 

North  Dakota  statutes 137 

Oklahoma  statutes 140 

Oregon   statutes 142 

Texas  statutes 151 

Wyoming  cooperative 173 

Dry-farming  industry,   mention  of 7 

Due  process  of  law,  violation  of,  in  organization  proceedings ■  18 

Duty  of  water  and  di'ainage 26 

E. 

Economy  in  water  from  rotation 70 

El  Paso  County  water  improvement  district  organized  for  drainage 27 

El  Paso  unit  irrigation  district,  mention  of 10 

Election  for  annexation 78 

For    dissolution 85 

Notice  of,  publication  and  posting 34 

Organization,  for  irrigation  district 13 

To   secure  constitutional   privilege 148 

"With   i-egard   to   exclusion 81 

Elections  and  qualifications  for  voting lS-20 

Qualification   of  voters 18-20 

Elections,  qualifications  in  regard  to 169 

Elections,   State   statutes : 

Arizona    statutes ■ 88, 165 

California    statutes 92 

Colorado    statutes . 102 

Idaho    statutes 1 108 

Nebraska  statutes,  organization 121 

Nevada    statutes,    elections    and    electors 127 

New  Mexico  statutes 131-132 

South  Dakota  statutes,  organization 144 

Texas    statutes,    organization 145-146 

Utah  statutes,  elections  and  electors 152 

Washington   statutes,  organization 156- 

Wyoming    statutes,    organization 173 

Wyoming    statutes,    electors 161 


192  INDEX. 

Electors,  qualifications  for :  Page. 

Arizona   statutes 165 

Montana    statutes 117 

Nevada    statutes 127, 168 

Oregon    statutes 142 

Washington    statutes 156 

AV.voiuing-    statutes 173 

Electric-power  plants,   Idaho  statutes 113 

Electric  power,  sale  of,  Oregon 144 

Electrical-power  works,  authority  for,  California 165 

Electrical  power.     {See  also  Powder  development.) 

Elephant  Butte  irrigation  district,  organized  for  drainage 27 

Elephant  Butte  unit  irrigation  district,  mention 10 

Emergenc.v  ai)propriation,   California   statutes . 99 

Eminent  domain,  power  of 74 

Eminent  domain,  power  of  board  of  directors  as  regards 20-21 

Eminent  domain.  New  Mexico  statutes 1 134 

Eminene  domain,  Oregon  statutes , 74,143 

Eminent  domain,  provision,  Texas 149 

Engineer,  board  of  directors  powers  to  appoint 21 

Engineer,  California,   functions  of 91,  96 

Engineer  Initiating  organization,  Utah 151 

Engineer,  preparation  of  plans  by,  Texas 147 

Engineer,  State,  report  with  petition,  Wyoming 162 

Engineer,  State,  concurrence  in  formation  of  district 16-17 

Engineer,  State.     {See  also  State  engineer.) 

Engineering  plans,  Nebraska  statute 120-121 

Entered  public  land,  control  secured  of 9 

Entered  pul)lic  land  in  proposed  irrigation  district  subject  to  State  law__  24-25 

Entered  public  lands,  liability  of 23 

Entire  district  liable  for  debts 1 57-5S 

Equalization  of  assessments : 

California    statutes 97 

Montana   statutes 119 

Nebraska  statutes 122 

.  Oklahoma  statutes 139-140 

Oregon   statutes 143 

Texas  statutes 146 

Washington    statutes 157 

Equities,  where  found  in  case  of  loss 53 

Errors  to  be  disregarded  in  confirmation 49 

Estoppel  applies  to  assessment  and  tax  sale 63 

Estoppel  involved  in  favor  of  organization 17-18 

Evans,  Charles  R.,  Nevada,  meni'ber  Committee  on  Irrigation 2 

Evidence  of  existence  of  irrigation  district,  Wyoming 162 

Evidence  of  organization,  Utah 153 

Excess  liabilities,  Oklahoma 140 

Executors,  may  sign  for  lands,  Nebraska 129 

Exclusion  of  lauds  in  general 79-80 

High  land 79 

Proceedings  for 80-81 

Order  by  the  board 81 

Election  when  necessary 81 

Seepage,  on, account  of 1        80 

Exclusion  of  lands.  State  statutes : 

Arizona  statutes 90 

California  statutes : 99 

California  statutes  through  mandamus 81 

Idaho  statutes 113 

Montana  statutes,  not  irrigable 167 

Nebraska  statutes 124 

Nevada    statutes 129-130 

Oklahoma  statutes 140-141 

Oregon  statutes 144 

Texas  statutes 146 

Utah  statutes 155 


INDEX.  193 

Exclusion  of  lands,  State  statutes — Continued.  P«&e. 

Washington   statutes 159 

Wyoming  statutes 163, 178 

Exempted  lands  not  taxed,  Montana  statutes IIS 

Exempted  lands,  North  Dakota  statutes 135 

Exemption  from  taxation  of  distriet  i)roporty,  advantages  of 9 

Exemption  of  irrigable  land  at  organization  not  allowed 13 

Exemption  of  bonds  from  taxation,  Utah _ 170 

Exemption  from  iissessmeiits,  Coloi'ado  statutes 104 

Exemption  ot  irrigated   lands.  New  Mexico  statutes 131 

Exeniiition  of  irrigated  lands.   I'tah : 152 

Exemption  from  taxation.  New  Mexico  statutes,—' 133 

Exemi)tion  of  lands,  Wyoming 161 

Expenses,  State  statutes: 

Idalio  statutes,  how  defrayed 113 

Nebraska    statutes 123-124 

Nevada  statutes 129 

New  Mexico  statutes 134 

Oklahoma  statutes 140 

Texas    statutes 149-150 

Utah    statutes 154, 170 

Washington    statutes 15S 

Wyoming    statutes 163 

F. 

Failures,  few  irrigation  districts 9 

Falll)rook    case,    quotation    from 11-12 

Farm  Loan  Board.     (See  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board.) 

Farm  loan,  removal  of  statutory  law 25-26 

Farmer,  irrigation,  not  an  individualist 7 

Farmers  as  individualists 7 

Feasibility  of  project,  certificate  of 43-44 

Feasibility  of  project  mentioned 42 

Feasibility  of  project  to  be  reported  on  by  State  engineer 16-17 

Federal  farm  loan  act,  how  benefit  secured 64 

Federal  Farm  Loan  Boai-d,  decision  as  regards  liens 25 

Federal  lands  in  irrigation  districts 23-24 

Federal  service.      {See  Reclamation  Service.) 

F'inal  proof,  taxable  interest  on,  Montana 24 

Financial  policy  of  operation ; 74 

Financial  responsibility,  advantages  of,  unified 53 

Poinding  of  court,  ^Montana  statutes 116 

First  irrigation  district  law,  Utah,  enacted 11 

Flat-rate  assessment  held   valid 56-57 

Flat  rate,  objection  to  assessing  by 55 

Foreclosure    methods    mentioned 65 

Foreclosure  of  district  liens,  Idaho 167 

Foreclosure  proceedings,  Utah 171 

Form  of  bonds 37 

Formation   of  irrigation   districts 12-18 

(Conclusiveness   of   organization 17-lS 

Hearing  on   organization 13 

Inclusion  of  cities  and  towns  in  irrigation  districts 15-16 

Legal  character  and  effect  of  proceedings 13-15 

Organization    election 13 

I'etition 12-13 

Railroad   property 16 

State  engineer's  concurrence  in  formation 16-17 

State   lands.    Federal   and ^ 16 

Formation,   Arizona  irrigation   district 87-88 

Formation.     (See  also  Organization.) 

Formation  of  organization,  Montana  statutes . , 116 

Fort  Lavamie-  irrigation  district,  mention 10 

Fraud,  effect  of.  on  confirmation 51 

Fraud  prevented  by  confirmation  proceedings 47 

100047—20 13 


194  IXDEX. 

Page. 

Functions  of  board  of  directors 20-21 

Funds,  bond  payment,  Montana  statutes lly 

Funds,  interest  and  sinkin.u-,  Texas 149 

Funds,   various.  California   statutes 99 

Funds.     (See  uUo  Expenses.) 

G. 

Gering  unit  irrigation  district,  mention  of 10 

Gray.  Justice,  on  validity  of  conllrmation  decree 50 

Guardians  may  sign  for  lands,  Nevada 129 

H. 

Harlan,  .Justice,  on  validity  of  confirmation  decree 50 

Harrison.  Benjamin,  counsel  in  Fallbrook  case 11 

Hayden,  Carl,  Arizona,  member  Committee  on  Irrigation 2 

Hearing  on  annexation 78 

Hearing  on  organizing  an  irrigation  district 13 

California  statute 91 

Montana  statute  _-_ 116 

Texas  statute 145 

Utah  statute 1.52 

Washingt(m  statute 172 

Hearing.     (8ce  also  Petition.) 

Hernandez,  Benigno  C,  member  Irrigation  Committee 2 

High  lands  assessed  for  drainage  of  low  lands 30-31 

High  lands,  charge  for  irrigation  drainage  of,  in  Idaho 30-82 

Historical  record  of  early  irrigation  district  act 11 

Home  owners,  small  versus  large ^ 19 

House  Committee  on  Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands,  list  of  members 2 

Hudspeth,  Claude,  Texas,  member  Committee  on  Irrigation 2 

I. 

Idaho  statutes 107-114. 167 

Annexation.^ '. 78, 113 

Annual  reports  and  statements 109-110 

Assessments 55,  59-60,  IKVlll 

Benefits   assessed 48,  55 

Bids  and  contract 113 

Bond  sales 110, 112-113 

Boundaries 113-114 

Carey  Act,  selection  under 109 

Carey  Act,  settlement  under 109 

Consolidaticm  of  districts 167,  48. 112 

Contract  with  the  United  States .* 110 

Dissolution  and  modification  of  boundaries 113-114, 167 

Drainage  benefits 31 

Drainage 111-112 

Drainage  unity  of  irrigation  iuid 26,28 

Elections  and  electorate 108 

Elections,    registration    fee 108 

Exclusion  of  lands *     113 

Exi)enses — how    defrayed 113 

High  land,  charge  for  drainage 30-32 

Liabilities,    excess 109 

Liens,  foreclosure  of 167 

Oflices,    district lOS-109 

Petition  for  organization 107-108 

Plan  of  operations,  general 16,110 

Power  plants,  electric 73, 113 

Public   corporation   idea 12 

Registration '_ 108 

Special   assessments 111 

State  engineer,  functions  of 16,108,110 


IISTDEX.  195 

Idalio  statutes — Continued.  Page. 

State    lands 114 

Tax   sales,    delinquent 113 

United  States,  contract  with  the 110 

Voters,  (inaliticatioiis  of 19-20 

Immaterial  (letVcls  in  assessment 62 

Jnmuiiiity  Irom  taxation  of  lands  in  California 40 

Iiniiaii-ini;-  olilipilion  of  contract,  i»rotection  of  bondholders  and . 40-41 

In]i)erial   Valley,  si)ecial  problems  of 101 

Improvements,  necessity  of  provisions  for  local 75 

Improvements  not  assessed  in  California,  Nebraska,  and  Oklahoma 55 

Improvement   disti-ict  i)i'ovisions,  Nevada 76,77,128 

Improvement  districts,  provision  for  Utah 171 

Improvement  disti'ict  law  chanj;es,  Washington 158, 172 

Improvement  districts,  Washington,  plan  for 76,  158 

Improvements,  subdistricts  for  .local 73-77 

Imi)rovements  within  the  main  district,  subdistricts  for  local 75-77 

Necessity  of  provisions  for  local  improvements 75 

Statutory    i)rovisious   necessary 75-76 

The  Nevada  i)rovision 76 

The  Washington  provision 76 

A    comparison 77 

Inchoate  title  no  bar  to  entering  into  contract,  Arizona 88 

Inclusion  of  cities  and  towns  in  irrigation  district 15-16 

Inclusion  of  lands,  State  statutes: 

Nebraska  statutes 124 

Oklahoma   statutes 140-141 

C)regon  statutes 144 

Texas  statutes 146 

Utah  statutes 155 

Washington  statutes 155-156, 158-159 

Wyoming  statutes 163 

Indebtedness,    adjustment   on   dissolution 85-87 

Indebtedness   not   l)onded 45-47 

Warrants 46-47 

Indebtedness  of  irrigation  districts 33^7 

Bonded  debts 34-45 

Indebtedness  not  bonded 45—47 

Indebtedness,  previously  incurred,  law,  regard  to,  unchanged 40 

Indebtedness  limitations,   State  statutes: 

Arizona  statutes 88 

Colorado  statutes 102 

]Montana   statutes 118 

Nevada    statutes 128 

Oregon  statutes,  amount  that  can  be  incurred  in 174 

Texas  statutes ■      147 

AVashington  statutes 12, 158 

Wyoming  statutes 163 

Indian  Cove  irrigation  district  case  cited 23 

Initiating  organization,  Utah 151 

Initiating  organization.     (See  also  Organizations.) 

Insurance  investment  in  bonds,  Montana 120 

Interest  couiions  on  bonds  issued 3.7 

Interest  on  iniprovement  warrants,  Utah 171 

Interest  rate  on  assessment  repayments,  Oregon 170 

Interest  rates  on  bonds,  Nevada 168 

Interior.  Secretary  of.     (Sec  Secretary  of  Inferior.) 

Intercounty  districts,  organization  of,  Texas 149 

Interdistrict  cooperation  and  merger 81-84 

Cooperative  construction 82 

Districts  for  interstate  projects 82 

California  statute 82-83 

Methods  that  of  cooperation  rather  than  corporate  unity 82 

Joint  action  in  securing  irrigation  works 83 

Merger  of  consolidation 83-84 

Overhead  or  reservoir  districts 81 

Interstate  district,  California  statute 93 


196  INDEX. 

PagCi 

Interstate  project  districts,  list  of 82 

Interstate  projects,  districts  for 82-83- 

Methods  that  of  cooperation  ratlier  than  corporate  unity 82 

Tlie  California  statute 82-83 

Interstate  projects,  provision  for,  Nevada 168 

Interstate  work,  California  statute  for 82-83 

Investment  of  bonds,  Nebraska  statute 125 

Investment  of  sinking  funds,  Texas 151 

Irrigation  a  novelty  to  English-speaking  people 8- 

Irrigation  as  the  fundamental  institution i 7-8 

Irrigation  districts  are  public  corporations 11-12, 

Irrigation  district,  corporate  nature  of 11 

Irrigation  districts,  drainage  by 26-33 

Irrigation  districts,  formation  or  organization L_  12-18. 

Conclusiveness  of  organization 17-18 

Hearing  on  organization 13. 

Inclusion  of  cities  and  towns 15-16. 

Legal  character  and  effect  of  proceedings 13-15 

Organization  election 13 

Petition 12-13 

Railroad  property 16 

State  engineer's  concurrence 16-17 

State  lands.  Federal  and 16 

Irrigation  district  idea  gaining  favor . 10 

Irrigation  districts  in  operation 68-75- 

Irrigation  districts,  indebtedness  of 33-47 

Irrigation  district  law,  constitutionality  upheld 66-6T 

Irrigation  district.     (See  District  organization.) 

Irx'igation  districts,  list  of  on  Reclamation  Service  projects 10 

Irrigation  districts,  origin  and  nature  of 10-12. 

Historical , 11 

Corporate  nature  of  a 11 

Are   public   corporations . 11-12 

Irrigation  districts  should  be  used  for  drainage 28 

Irrigation  districts,  water  supply  of  under  Warren  Act 22 

Irrigation  farmer  not  an  individualist 7 

Irrigation  forces  cooperation 54 

Irrigation  necessity,  drainage  an . 26 

Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands,  committee  on  list  of  members 2 

Irrigation  plan,  Nebraska  statutes 120-121 

Irrigation  system,  can  not  purchase  by  eminent  domain  in  Texas 149> 

Irrigation,  the  public  corporation  as  related  to 7-10 

J. 

Joint  action  in  securing  irrigation  works 83- 

Joint  construction  of  works,  Texas 151 

Judicial  notice  of  existence  of  district,  Arizona 88 

Jurisdiction  of  county  board  as  to  establishment  of  boundaries 14-15 

Jurisdiction  of  court  In  confirmation  proceedings 48-49- 

K. 

Kansas  statutes 114-115 

Assessment  and  levy 115 

Bonds 115 

Cooperative  construction  not  authorized 21 

Critiei^'ni.  indebtedness,  Ixmndaries , ll.'i 

Distribution   of  w;iter ' 1 115 

Offices 114 

Organization . 114 

Two  or  more  counties  involved 115 

King,  Will  R.,  author  of  book 1 

King  Hill  project,  organization  and  method  of  contracting 22 

Kinkaid,  A'oses  P..  chairman  of  Committee  on  Irrigation... 2 

Klamath  project,  irrigation  district,  mention 10 

Klamath  project,  an  interstate  one 82 


INDEX.  197 

L. 

Page, 

Land,  price  of,  in  early  days 8 

Lands  assessable,  discussion  of 60 

Lands.     (Sec  Exe]ni)tion  :  Inclusion.) 

Lands,  Federal,  in  iri'i.ijjation  district 23-24 

Lands  included  in  irri.uatiou  district,  decisions 14-15 

Lane,  Franklin  K.,  on  irrij^ation  districts 10 

Large  districts,  California  statutes 101 

Large  landowners,  California,  early  opposition  of 13 

Laws.  State,  regarding  cooperatiuii  willi  ITnited  States 21-23 

Laws.     (See  st;itutes  mider  resjiective  States.) 

Leadership  in  irrigation  district  idea,  California,  early  credit  for 11 

Leases.  California  statute 93 

Lease  of  in-igation  system.  ^Montana  statutes 117-118 

Lea.se  of  water  to  occupant  oniitted,  Utah •    170 

Lease  of  water,  assignment  or,  Utah 152-153 

Ivease,  use  of  water,  Wyoming 173 

Leasehold  interests,  assessment  of 60 

Leasing  water  to  cities  and  towns  perndtted 73-74 

Legality  of  organization  of  irrigation  district 17-18 

Lessee,  payments  ()f  assessments  by 61 

Levee  district  assessment  in  Texas 56 

Levees  authorized  to  be  constructed,  Arizona 88 

Levy  and  assessment  of  charges 54-65 

Levy,  State  statutes : 

California  statute  assessment 97 

Colorado    statutes 104 

INIontana  statutes,  annual  expense 119 

Nevada  statutes,  collection .     129 

Nebraska  statutes,  equalization  and 122 

North  Dakota  statutes,  collection 136 

Texas,  requirements  for 148-149 

Utah,  rates  of 154 

Washington    statutes 157 

Wyoming    statutes 162-163 

Liability  of  district  as  a  whole,  relaxation  from 57-58 

Arizona  provision  for  discharge  of  obligation 57 

Dakota  provisions 58 

Defect  in  Montana  act 57-58 

Release  from  debt  for  refunding  bonds,  Colorado 58 

Liability  for  official  negligence 71 

Liabilities,  excess,  Idaho  statute 109 

Liability  of  district  officers,  Montana  statutes 120 

Liability  for  negligence,  North  Dakota  statutes 137 

Liabilities,  excess,  Oklahoma 140 

Liability  for  negligence,  Oklahoma 141 

Lien,  extinguishment  of,  Colorado  statutes 106 

Liens  in  irrigation  district  and  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board 25 

Lien,  nature  of  irrigation  district 63 

Lien  of  bonds,  Montana  statutes 119 

Lien  on  land,  bonds  as  a,  W^ashington  statute 156-157 

laens.  Reclamation  Service ^ 64 

Limitation  of  powers  in  issuing  bonds 33-34 

Limitation  of  bonded  indebtedness 45-46 

Ijimitation  of  indebtedness,  ^Montana  statutes 118 

Washington   statute 158 

Wyonung    statute 163 

Limitation  of  indebtedness.     (See  Indebtedness.) 

Limitations,   statutory,   protecting  organization 17-18 

Liquidation  required,  Colorado  statutes 106 

Litigation,  statutory  limit  on  time  for 17-18 

Little,  E.  C,  member  Irrigation  Committee 2 

Loan  of  money  by  United  States  to  district 21 

Loaning  money,  Raker  bill  would  aid 26 

Loans,  removal  of  statutory  bar  to 25-26 

Loans.     (See  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board.) 


198  Il\^DFA'. 

Page. 

Local  improvements  within  the  main  district,  snlxlistricts  for 75-77 

Necessity  for  provisions  for  local  improvements 75 

Statutory  provisions  necessary 75-76 

The  Nevada  provision 76 

The  Washington  pi'ovision 76-77 

A  comparison 77 

Local  improvements,  Washington,  provision  for 7G-77 

Local  improvements.     (See  also  Improvements.) 

Lowlands,  may  high  lands  be  assessed  for  drainage  of , 30 

M. 

Majority,  New  Mexico  rules  as  to 13,34 

Majority  required  in  bond  election 34 

Majority,  support  of,  essential  at  organization  election 18 

Mandamus  for  failure  to  access 62 

Mandamus  with  regard  to  exclusion  of  land 81 

Mandamus  to  comi)el  district  officers  to  deliver  water 71 

Mapleton  unit  irrigation  district,  mention  of 10 

Marines,  preference  to,  Oregon 174 

IMass  meetings — a  suggestion 75 

Maturity  of  bonds,  Montana  statutes 118 

Maturity,  retirement  of  bonds  before 44 

Meetings  of  board  of  directors  public 21 

Merger,  interdistrict   cooperation   and 81-84 

Cooperative    construction 82 

Districts  for  interstate  projects 82 

California    statute 82-83 

Methods  tliat  of  cooperation  rather  than  corporate  unity ^ 82 

.Toint  action  in  securing  irrigation  worlvs 83 

Merger  or  consolidation 83-84 

Overhead  or  reservoir  districts 81 

Merger  or  con.solidation,  necessity  for 83 

Merger  plan,  Nevada 83-84 

Merger  plan.  Oregon  statutes 83, 144 

Merger  proposition,  California 84 

Minidoka  project,  irrigation  district,  mention 10 

IMinority.  exercise  of  compulsion  on,  in  public  corporaton 7,9 

Mississippi  Valley  drainage,  statutes  similar  to,  enacted 27 

Modesto  irrigation   district,  origin ^ 90 

Montana,  statutes  of 115-120, 167-168 

Area,  change  in  assessable 117,167 

Assessments 119, 167 

Assessments,   defect   in 57 

Assessments,  equalization  of 119 

Board  of  coommissioners .    116 

Bonds,  issue  and  contii'mation 118 

Bonds,  as  investments 120 

Bonds,  lien  of,  and  funds  for 119 

Bonds,  registration  of 118 

Boundaries,  changes  of . 117,167 

Construction  work 116-117 

Contract  limitations  in 46 

Contract  with  the  United  States 117 

Cooperation  with  the  United  States 167 

Collections  and  disbursements 119 

Court  finding  conclusive 116 

Dissolution   petition 167 

Electors,  qualifications  of 117 

Exchision  of  lands 167 

Exempted  lands  not  taxed 118 

Final-proof  decision 24 

Formation  of  irrigation  disti'ict 116 

Hearing  on  organization  petition 116 

Indebtedness  limitations US 

Lease  of  irrigation  systems 117-118 


INDEX.  199 

Moiilniiii.  si.itutes  of — Contiiuied.  Page. 

Levy,  iimuuil 119 

Lien  on   bonds 119 

Liitl)ilit.v  of  district  officers 120 

NoniJ  nations 117 

I'ui'ixjses  of  irrigation  district 116 

Ki.ulU  of  way  over  State  lands ~ 120 

Tax   sales,  delin(inent : 120 

Watei-  ri.iilits  and  aitporlionnient 118 

Water  rights,  lands  Jiaving  prior ^ 116 

Water  sul)Stitution 118 

INIortgage.     {Sec  Lien.) 

IVInngei-,  Jnslice,  Colorado,  ojiinion  on   reassessment 59 

IMunicipal  coritoration,  objection   to  term • 12 

I\Innicii»iil  idea  applied  to  irrigation ._  8 

Mutnal  ditch  company,  passing  of  the 8 

N. 
Nature  of  irrigation  districts : 

Identical  legal  character  with  di-ainage  district 11 

Settled  by  United  States  Supreme  Court 11 

M'lien  in  not  strictly  nunucipal  coiiDorations 12 

Nebraska  statutes 120-126, 168 

Annual  report 121 

Assessment,  continued 126 

Assessment 122 

Assess,  result  of  failure  to 123 

Bonds 34,122 

Bonds,    as   investments 125 

Bonds,    registi'ation   of : 125 

Boundaries,   change   of 124 

Contract  with  the  United  States 125-126 

Collection    of   taxes . 122, 168 

Confirmation . 124—125 

Consti'uction    of   works 123 

T)rainagp 124 

E)issolution 126 

Distribution   of  water 121 

Election,    organization 121 

Equalization  and  levy 122 

Exclusion  of   land .' 124 

Improvements  not  assessed 55,56 

Inclusion   of  land 124 

Officers 121 

Petition    for   formation 120 

Owiiershi])  of  hind  required  of  A'oters ^ 19 

Plan,  ii'rigation - 120-121 

Prioritv  of  obligations 124 

Public  lands.  Federal 123 

School   funds,   investment  of 125 

Punning   expenses 123-124 

Treasurer,  duties  of 168 

Sale  of  property * 126 

Special    assessments 124 

Status  of  district  property 121 

Taxes,   delinquent ^^ 123 

Taxes,  refund  of 123 

Warrant  issue,  limits  upon 123 

United  States,  contract  with  the 125-126 

Water  right,  transfer  of : : 121 

Water    sui)ply 125 

Neglect  of  assessment,  Califorina  statutes 9T-9S 

Neglect  of  duty  by  oflicers,  Washington  statute 157 

Negligence,   lial)ility   for  ollicial 71,141 

Negligence,  liability  foi'.  North  I)akota  statutes 137 

Negotiability  of  l)onds,  asregards  form 37 


200  INDEX. 

Page. 

Xegotialiility  of  district  bonds 38-39 

Negotiability  of  warrants  of  irrigation  district 47 

Nevada  statutes 127-130, 168 

Annexation 129 

Assessments 55, 128, 168 

Assessments  payment  by  State 61 

Bonds 129,  168 

Bonds,   interest  on 168 

Confirmation ^ 128 

Consent  of  the  United  States  to  exclusion 130 

Consolidation  of  districts 130 

Construction    contracts 129 

Dissolution,   division,   exclusion 130 

Drainage  worlv,  apportionment  of  benefit 168 

Electors  and  elections 127,168 

Exclusion  of  lands 129-130 

Expenses,  organization  and  maintenance 129 

Interstate  projects 168 

Improvement  provisions,  local 76, 128 

Indebtedness,    limitations    on 128 

Levy  and  collection 129 

Officers  127-128 

Merger  plan 83-84 

Petition 127 

Petition,   signers   of - —       129 

Purposes 127 

Plan  of  operations 128 

Qualifications  of  electors 19,127,168 

Reports  and  statements 129 

State  lands 130 

State  payments 61 

Tax  sale,   delinquent 129 

United  States,  consent  of 130 

United  States,  cooperation  with 168 

Newlands  in'o.iect   (formerly  Truckee-Carson  project)   irrigation  district, 

mention    of 10 

Newlands  project   (formrely  Truckee-Carson  project)    irrigation  district 

organized  for  drainage 27 

New  Mexico  statutes 130-135, 168-169 

Assessments    '. 133-134 

Assessments,  determination  of 133 

Bonds -  132-133,169 

Bonds,    refunding 169 

Boundaries,   change   of 134 

Boundaries,   divisions ■ 131 

Cooperation  with  United  States 168 

Collections  and   disbursements 134 

Confirmation •  48, 135 

Conununit.v    ditches 131 

Cooperation  with  the  United  Stcites 132 

Dissolution   134-135 

Distribution  of  water 1 133 

Drainage  assessments 29. 134. 169 

Electors  and  elections 131-132. 169 

Imminent  domain 1 134 

Exemption   of   irrigated   lands 131 

Exemption   from   taxation 133 

Expenses,    general 134 

Judicial    notice 133 

Majority  required,  including  definition 13,34 

Organization  petition : 130.  169 

Power    development ■ 73. 168 

Powers,    incidental 131 

Purposes 130-131 

Publication : 131 


INDEX.  201 

Xew  Mexico  .statures — (Vnitiiiued.  Page. 

Seepaj^e   hiiuls   nor   raxeil J69 

iSpanish  law  and  notices  in 131 

Taxation,  exemption  from 133 

Ignited  States,  conti'act  witli 168 

Water  supjily  ajiproved  liy  State  engineer— l 1,32 

Nonniiations,    California    statutes 92 

.Montana    statutes _. 117 

Noidrrigalile  lands  lield  assessable . 60 

Nonii-rigaltle  land  not  included  in  irrigation  district 1.5 

Nonirrifiahle.     {See  also  Exclusion  of  lands.) 

IN'onpaynient  iind  denial   of  service 71 

Nonresident   voters,  (lualitications 20 

North  Dakota  statutes 135-138 

Assessment 136 

Assessment,  in  proportion  to  benefit 55 

Bonds 136 

Boundaries    and    subdivisions 135-136 

Boundaries,    changes   of 138 

Contirmation  proceedings 137 

Contract  and  cooperation  with  United  States 137 

Contract  not  authorized  by  voters 22 

Dissolution 138 

Drainage 137 

Exempted  lands 135 

Lands    exempted ^ 135 

Levy  and  collection 136 

Negligence,   liability  for 137 

Petition  for  organization 135 

Plans  .submitted  to  State  engineer 136 

Priority   of  obligations 136-137 

Refund  when  lands  not  benefited 137 

Release  of  lands  not  benefited 136 

Registration  of  bonds 137 

Special   assessments 137 

'    State  engineer,  report  of 135 

Warrants ^ 1 13G 

NTorth  I'latte  pro.1ect  an  interstate  one 82 

North  Platte  project,  irrigation  district,  adjacent  to 10,  22 

NIotice  by  publication,  for  irrigation  district 13-14 

Notice  of  organization  hearing  by  publication 13 

Notice,  judicial,  New  Mexico  statutes '. 133 

O. 

'Officers  of  district  organization,  functions 20-21 

The  board  of  directors  and  its  functions 20-21 

Other  district   officers 21 

'Officers,  State  statutes : 

California  statutes 92 

Idaho  statutes 108-109 

Kan.sas  statutes 114 

Nebra.ska  statutes 121 

Nevada  statutes 127-128 

Oregon  statutes 142 

'Okanogan  project  irrigation  district,  mention  of 10 

'Oklahoma  statutes 138-141 

Assessor  and  treasurer 139 

Bonds 139 

Boundaries,  changes  of 141 

Borrow  money,  power  to 140 

Confirmation  proceedings 141 

Construction  work 139 

Dissolution 141 

Distribution  of  water ■_ 138-139 

Drainage 140 

Equalization  and  levy 139-140 


202  INDEX. 

Oklahoma  statutes — Continued.  Page. 

Improvements  not  assessed  iu 55 

Expenses,  construction  and  other ^ 140 

Inclusion  and  exclusion 140-141 

Liabilities,   excess 140 

Negligence,  liability  for 141 

Organization 138 

I'ublicity  of  meeting , 139 

Refunding  bonds 141 

Ilefiind  where  lands  not  benefit 140 

Registration  of  bonds 141 

Si)ecial   assessments 140 

Tax  sales  provisions 140 

Warrants,  issuance  of 140 

Operation  by  the  United  States . 74-75 

Operation,  irrigation  districts  in 68-75 

"  Beneficial  use  "  rule  preferable 70 

Carey  act  projects 75 

California  rule  in  distribution 70 

Denial  of  service  for  nonpayment 71 

I)istril)ution   of  water 69-70' 

r>istrict    responsil)ility.    theoi-y 71 

Districts  can  not  adjudicate  water  rights 69 

Eminent  domain,  power  of 74 

Financial    policy 74 

Liability  for  othcial  negligence ' 71 

Mass  meetings,  a  suggestion 75 

Nonjudicial  classitication  of  rights 69 

Official    lialMlity 71-72 

Operation  l)y  the  United  States 74-75 

Power    development 72-7S 

Relations  with  cities 73-74 

Rotation   in   service 70-71 

Special    privileges : 74 

Transfer  of  water  in  case  of  subirrigation 72 

Transfer,  tlie  privilege  of 72 

Vested   rights 68 

Water    right 68 

Order  for  exclusion  of  lands ' 81 

Oregon  Irrigation  Commission 1'''4 

Oregon  statutes 142-144. 169-170, 174 

Assessments    l"^-^'  ^'^^ 

Bonds   -  142-143. 170 

P>(>nds.   issuajice  by   implication So 

Bonds  as  an  investment m  4i 

Bondholders,    security   of • i^l 

Certificates   of    indebtedness 1^4 

Certification   of  district  bonds ■■ 1<^ 

Certification  of  feasiliility 43 

Commission,    irrigation Tn~T7o"T.i  i  i^n 

Confirmation    48. 143-144, 170 

Constitutional    amendment 1'^ 

Construction  plans j^- 

Dissolution    ' }.\.^ 

Drainage    work .^ 

Electors,  qualifiations  of |.^ 

Eminent   domain '   '     .q 

Equalization   -.  ,\ 

Inclusion  and  exclusion ^„. 

Indebtedness  that  may  be  incurred |' 

Interest  rate  on  assessment  repayment . ^^  ^^^ 

Merger  IIIII_     '  142 

Officers -j^42 

Petition  for  organization --g 

Power    development -^j'^ 

Red  Cross  nurses,  preference 


IxYDKX.  203 

Ort'iLioii  statutes — rontiimcd.  Page. 

Sale  of  lands  imt  needed _• 170 

Sale  of  water  or  power 144,  170 

Soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines,  l>refereuce 174 

Tax  sales,  delin(iuent ; : 143 

Voting;-,  prcjierty  ((nalitieations  for 20 

\\  arrants.  liuiil  of  outstanding 47 

<,)ri;anization  of  irri^iaiion  district Ji;-18 

Conclusiveness  of  orjianization . — .-^  17-18 

Hearinj;:  on  orjianization 13 

Inclusion  of  cities  and  towns l.Vlfi  ' 

Le,i:al  character  and  effect  of  proceedings 13-ir> 

Oi'ganization    election 13 

retition 12-13 

Railroad  property : IG 

State  engineer's  concurrence 16-17 

State  lands.  Federal  and 16 

Organization,  district,  not  a  panacea . 9-10 

Organization  election,  rules  as  to  majority  required 13 

Organization,  evidence  of,  Utah 153 

Organization  hearing  for  an  irrigation  district 13 

Organization,   iri-igation   district,   legality   of 17-18 

Organization  petition  for  an  irrigation  district 12-13 

Organization,  State  statutes: 

California  statutes 90-91 

Colorado   statutes 102 

Kansas  statutes , 114 

Montana  statutes 116 

New  Mexico  statutes 130-131 

North  Dakota  statutes 135 

Oklahoma   statutes ."^      138 

South  Dakota  statutes 144 

Texas  statutes , 145-146 

Utah  statutes 153 

A'S'ashington  statutes 155 

Wyoming  statutes 161, 173 

Organization.      (»SVe  also  Election;  Petition.) 

Origin  and  nature  of  irrigation  districts 10-12 

Corporate  nature  of  an  irrigation  district 11 

Historical , 11 

Irrigation  districts  are  public  corporations 11-12 

Overflowed  land,  drainage  provided  in  California 28 

Overhead  or  resei-voir  districts  . 82 

P. 

Panacea,  district  organization  not  a 9 

Payment  of  assessments,  Washington  statute 157 

Payments  upon  admission 78-79 

Personal  property  assessed,  Texas 1 145-146 

Assessment  upheld  in  Texas 55,  56 

Taxes,  delinquent,  Texas 147 

Personal  service  not  required  in  organization 13-14 

Petition  for  an  irrigation  district - 12-13 

Petition  for  dissolution 85 

Petition,  report  on,  by  State  engineer 16 

Petition,  organization,  State  statutes  : 

California  statutes 13,  94r-95 

Colorado  statutes 102 

Idaho  statutes 107-108 

Nebraska  statutes 120 

Nevada  statutes 127 

New  Mexico  statutes 130,169 

North  Dakota  statutes 135 

Oregon  statutes 142 

Texas  statutes 145 


204  INDEX. 

Petition,  organization,  State  statutes — Continued.  Page. 

Utali  statutes 152 

Wasliingtou    statutes    155 

Wyoming  statutes : 161-2 

Plan  of  operation,  Nevada  statutes 128 

Plans  of  proposed  woriis,  Texas  statutes 147 

Plans,  report  on  by  State  engineer 16 

Plans  submitted  to  engineer,  Nortli  Dakota 136 

Polls,  hours  open  at  an  organization  election 14 

Power-development  laws 72-73 

Power  development.  State  statutes : 

California  statutes,  authority  for 73,  93, 165 

Idaho  statutes 73, 113 

New  Mexico  statutes 73, 168 

Oregon  statutes 73 

Oregon  statutes,  sale  of  power 144 

Wasliington    statutes 73 

Precincts  for  election  established 18 

Preferences  to  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines,  Oregon 174 

Prior  water  rights,  adjudication  of 69 

Priority  of  obligation,  Nebraska  statutes 124 

Priority  of  obligations,  North  Dakota  statutes -.-  136-137 

Priority  of  public  assessment  over  private  lands 0 

Private  corporation,  passing  of  the 8 

Procedure,  statutory,  in  contirmation 48 

Pi-oceedings  in  rem,  for  organization 13-14 

Proceedings,  organization,  legal  character  and  effect  of 13-14 

Profit,  none  for  promotion : 9 

Promotion  expenses  eliminated  in  district  organization 9 

Property  qualification  for  voting 18-19 

Property  qualification  for  voting,  Oregon 20 

Protection  of  IxMidholders,  dissolution,  California  statute 100 

Protection  of  bondholders,  exclusion,  California  statute !)9 

Protest  against  annexation 78 

Powers  of  purcliase  of  irrigation  district 33 

Power  to  borrow  money,  Oklalioma 140 

Power  to  issue  bonds  by  implication 35 

Power  to  issue  bonds  prescribed 37 

Powers  of  irrigation  district  defined  by  courts,  California 33-34 

Powers  of  board,  Colorado  statute 102 

Powers  of  districts.  New  Mexico  statute 131 

Powers   of  directors',   Texas 146 

Powers   of   directors,   Utah 152 

Public    corporation,    advantages    of 8 

Public  corporation  as  related  to  irrigation 7-10 

Advantages   of   district   organization 8-9 

District  organization  not  a  panacea 9-10 

Experience  of  the  Federal  Government 10 

Growth  of  the  jmblic  corporation  idea 8 

Irrigation   as   the   fundamental    institution 7-8 

Irrigation  farmer  not  individualist 7 

Projects  not  Federal 10 

Public  corporation.     (See  also  Corporation.) 

Public  corporation  idea,  growth  of,  for  irrigation S 

Public  corporation  idea  in  Idaho 12 

Public  corporations),  irrigation  carried  on  by 7 

Public  corporations,  irrigation  districts  are 11-12 

Public  corporation  principle  first  applied  to  irrigation 11 

Public  lands,  assessment,   Nebraska  statutes 123 

Public  lands,  control  secured  of  entered 9 

Public  ownership,  advantages;  of  in  irrigation  district .        7 

Publication,    delinquency    list,    Washington 158 

Publication,   jurisdiction   secured   by 9 

Publication,  notice  of  organization  hearing  by 13-14 

Publication   notice    in   bond    election 34 

Publicity  of  meetings,  Oklahoma  statutes 139 


IIS^DEX.  205 

Page. 

Purpose  of  organization,  Montana  statutes 110 

Purpose  of  organization,  Wasliington  statutes 155 

Purpose   of  organization,    Wyoming    statutes 161 

Q. 

Qualillcation  of  vuti'rs  in  various  States  discusseil 18-20 

Qualifications  of  voters,  by  States : 

California  district  irrigation  law : 20 

Idaho  district  act  as  regards 10-20 

Montana    statutes 117 

Nebraska  statutes,  land  ownership  required 19 

Nevada    statutes 19 

Oregon    statutes 142 

Nevada    statutes 127, 168 

Oregon  court  decision  regarding  property 20 

Utah  statutes,  per  acre-foot  of  water 19 

Quasi  corporation,  irrigation  district  is  a 71 

Quasi  nninicipa!  character  of  irrigation  district  corporaton_ 11 

R. 

Railroad  crossing,  California  statute 96 

Railroad  lauds,  assessment  of,  upheld 60 

Railroad  property,  inclusion  in  irrigation  districts .   16 

Raker,  Jolm  E.,  introduced  bill  to  relieve  lands  from  reservation  of  lien 25 

Raker  bill,  reference  to  advantages  of 20 

Real  and  personal  property  assessed,  Texas 55,  56 

Real  property  assessments  mentioned 55 

Real  property  liable  for  bonds 39 

Reassessment  of  lands  upheld  on  appeal,  Colorado 58-59 

Reassessment  of  valuable  tracts  should  not  be  necessary 5;:i 

Recall  applicable  to  irrigation  district,  Arizona 88 

Recall  of  district  officers,  provision  for 72 

Recall  of  district  officers  valid 68 

Recall,  statutes  on,  California 92 

Reclamation  act  and  Smith  Act 25 

Reclamation  act,  cooperation  under,  Montana  statute 107 

Reclamation  act,  construction  by  United  States,  under,  authorized 21 

Reclamation  extension  act,  mention  and  date 27 

Reclamation  extension  act  on  delinquency 71 

Reclamation  projects,  drainage  experience  on : 27 

Reclamation  projects,  reserved  lien  on  patented  lands  is  not  necessary 25 

Reclamation  Service  holds  that  law  to  construct  irrigation  works  covers 

drainage  also 29 

Reclamation  Service,  irrigation  districts  under,  list  of '.  10 

Reclamation  Service  liens 64 

Recording  of  change  in  boundaries • 78 

Red  Cross  nurses,  preferences  to,  Oregon  statutes 174 

Redemption  after  tax  sale,  California  statutes 98 

Redemption  of  bonds.  Washington  statutes 158 

Redemption  of  property  sold  for  taxes,  Washington 158 

Refund  when  lands  not  benefited,  North  Dakota  statutes 137 

Refund  when  lands  not  benefited,  Oklahoma-- - 140 

Refunding  bonds 44-45 

Refunding  bonds,  State  statutes : 

California  statutes 166 

Colorado  statutes 103 

Colorado  statutes,  release  from  debt 58 

New   Mexico   statutes 169 

Oklahoma  statutes 141 

Texas  statutes 151 

Registration  and  certification  of  bonds 42-43 

Registration  for  voting  dispensed  with 18 

Registration  of  bonds 9 


206  I^s^DEX. 

Registration  of  l)onds,  State  statutes :  Page. 

Idaho  statutes 108 

Montana  statutes 118 

Nebraslva  stiitutes 125 

North  Dakota  statutes 137 

Olvlalionia  statutes ' 141 

Relaxation  from  liability  of  district  as  a  whole 57-58 

Arizona   provisions 58 

Colorado  release  from  debt 58 

Dakota  pi-ovisions 58 

Montana  act,  defect  of 57-58 

Release  from  debt  for  refunding  bonds,  Colorado 58 

Release  of  lands  in  Arizona  on  payment 58 

Release  of  lands  on  payment  of  assessment  in  advance  to  be  avoided 52 

Release  of  lands,  when  no  longer  benefited,  North  Dakota  statutes 136 

Repayment  of  bonds  mandatory 37-38 

Reports,  annual,  California  statutes 92 

Reports,  annual,  Nebraska  statutes 121 

Reports  and  statements,  Nevada  statutes 129 

Report  on  plans  by  State  engineer ^ 16 

Reservoir  districts,  overhead  or 82 

Residence  qualification  for  voting 18-19 

Responsibilities  of  district  and  creditors  not  joint 52 

Responsibility  of  district  theory 71 

Retirement  of  bonds  before  maturity 44 

Revenue  collection,  two  instruments  of 54 

Revenue,   general  provisions 52-54 

A  tendency  to  be  avoided 52 

A  word  on  cooperation 53-54 

Advantages  to  district  of  unified  responsibility 53 

Importance  as  regards  drainage 53 

Joint  responsilulity  of  district  and  creditors  would  be  fatal 52 

Provisions  for   revenue  fundamental 52 

Two  instruments  for  revenue  collection — • 54 

Where  the  equities  are  to  be  found  in  case  of  loss 53 

Revenue  in   general 52 

Assessment  and  levy 54-65 

General   discussion 52-54 

Tolls  and  charges 65-66 

Revenue  for  operation  and  maintenance,  Texas  statutes 149-150 

Review  of  assessments  by  State  courts,  decision 62 

Review  of  facts  in  confirmation 49 

Reynolds,  Dan  F..  clerk,  Committee  on  Irrigation 2 

Right  of  way,  Montana  statutes 120 

Rio  Grande  project  an  interstate  one 82 

Irrigation  district,  mention  of 10 

Irrigation  district,  organized  for  drainage 27 

Riparian  rights.  Innds  with,  included 15 

Riparian  rights,  survival  of  doctrine  of 8 

Ross,  Justice,  constitutionality,  decision  of ^     66 

Rotation  of  water  deliveries 70-71 

S,' 

Sacramento  Valley,  mention  of  drainage  in 28 

Sailors,  preference  to.  Oregon  statute 17*4 

Salaries,   Ijonds  not  to  be  issued  for — i 3a 

Sale  of  bonds t^ 

Sale  of  lands  not  needed,  Oregon  statute l'<2 

Sale  of  irrigation  system.  Colorado  statutes 107 

Sale  of  projierty,  Nel)raska  statutes 126 

Sale  of  water  or  electric  power.  Oregon  statute 144 

San  Joaquin  Valley,  mention  of  drainage  in ^28 

School  compared  to  irrigation  district 'i-^ 

School  fund.s,   irrigation  bonds  as  investment  in 9 

School  funds,  investment  of,  Nebraska  statutes 125 

School   lands,    Colorado   provision    for 60-61 


IXDEX.  207 

Page. 

:8(.'li(>()l    lands,   ]ia,viiieiit  of  assessnieiit  by 60 

►Scliool   lands,  sal.'  of,   South   Dakota 60,14-1 

School  tax  ill  itroportion  to  nnmbtn-  of  children,  discussed 10 

Seal  of  district   to  bo  on  bonds 37 

Secretary,  Ixiard  of  directors,  power  to  appoint 21 

Secretary   of   Interior   authorized   to   coutract   under   Warren   Act 22, 23 

Exclusion   in    writinji'   Ity : . ' 80 

May  siiiii  a   petition  for  organization.  Nevada -       129 

Mer.iier  by   written   consent  of '"^-l 

\yrilten  consent  of,  to  change  boundaries 78 

Security   behind    district   bonds 39-40 

Les<senini;'   should   be   avoided ^- 

Seepage,    evils   of,    inentioned 26 

Exclusion  desired  on  account  of 8(( 

Lands  not  taxed,  New  Mexico 169 

Losses,    security    against 32-33 

Signatures  of  oflicials  on  bonds , 37 

Sinking  funds.  iMvestnient  of,  Texas 151 

Sinnott.  N.  .].,  meinber  committee  on  irrigation 2 

Small  home  owner  A^ersus  large  liome  owner 19 

Smith,  Addison  T..  member  of  irrigation  comiuittee 2 

Smith.  Representative  Addison  T.,  act  introduced  by 23 

Smitli  Act,  mention  of 24 

Smitli  Act  should  be  ])roadened 2.5 

Soldiers,  preferences  to.  Oregon 174 

Spanish  law,  reference  to  community  ditches  under 131 

Spanish,  notices  to  be  in.  New  Mexico  statutes 131 

Special  assessments  collectible 65 

Special  assessments,  State  statutes : 

California  statute 99 

Idaho  statutes HI 

Nebraska    statutes 124 

North  Dakota  statutes 137 

Oklahoma    statutes --       1;40 

Washington  statutes 158 

Special  privileges,  donation   and   taxation 74 

Speculation  in  land  eliminated 9 

Si)eculation  prevented  by  certitication  of  feasibility 43 

Speculative  holdings  encouraged  by  voting  ix>wer 19 

SpringTille  unit  irrigation  district,  mention 10 

South  Dakota  statutes 144-14.5 

Benefit  assessments 5.5 

Bonds,  interest  and  maturity 145 

Contract,  authorization  of 22 

Organization   and  election l-t-l 

Sale  of  school  lands 60,144 

Stanislaus  County,  lands  included  in  irrigation  district ^     15 

State  courts  uphold  confirmation  decree 50-51 

State  engineer : 

Concurrence  in  formation  of  district 16-17 

Submission  of  plans  and  petition  to 16 

Supervision  by,  now  generally  required  by 21 

To  determine  feasibility 42 

State  engineer.  State  statutes : 

California,    functions 91 

Idaho  statutes 16, 108, 110 

New  Mexico  statutes,  approval  of  water  supply 132 

North  Dakota  statutes 135 

Washington  statutes,  hearings 1'''2 

Wyoming  statutes,  report  with  jietition 162 

State  laws  aid  cooperation  with  United  States 9 

State  laws  and  cooperation  witli  United  States 21-23 

State  lands : 

Assessment    of 60-61 

Leasehold  interests 60 

Payment  of  assessments  by  State 60-61 

PaVment  of  assessments  by  purchaser  or  lessee ^ 61 


208  IXDEX. 

state  lands,  State  statutes :  Page. 

Colorado  statute : 103 

Idaho  statutes,   assessment 114 

Navada    statutes 130 

Utah  statutes,  inclusion  of 170-171 

Washington    statutes 171 

State  statutes,  outline  of 87-173 

Statutory  limitation  attaches  on  irrigation  district  organization 17-18 

Storage  of  water,  provisions  for,  California 165 

Storage  worlvs  for  u  district 82 

Stoutemyer,  B.  E.,  statements  on  Raker  bill 26 

Strawberry  Valley  project,  irrigation  districts  in,  mention 10 

Subdistricts  for  local  improvements 75-77 

Necessity  for  provisions  for  local  improvements 75 

Statutory  provisions  necessary 75-76 

The  Nevada  provision-- 76 

The  Washington  provision 76-77 

A  comparison 77 

Subdivisions,  boundaries  and,  North  Dakota  statutes 135-136 

Subirrigated  lands,  L)ak(tta  act  for  relief  of 58 

Subirrigiition  and  transfer  of  water 72 

Substitution  of  water,  Montana  statutes 118 

Summers,  John  W.,  member  Irrigation  Committee 2 

Sun  River  project  irrigation  district,  mention  of 10 

Sunnyside  unit  irrigation  district,  mention  of 10 

Supply  and  drainage  systems  are  irrigation  works 26 

Supreme  Court  doulitful  of  validity  of  confirmation  decree 49-50 

Survey,  and  allotment  of  water,  Utah  statute 152 

Surveys,  board  of  directors  has  power  to  make 21 

Swamp  land,  drainage  in  California  provided 28 

T. 

Tax  foreclosure,  delinquent.  Texas 146-147 

Tax  liens  on  public  lands,  provided  for  in  irrigation  districts 25 

Tax  sales  of  entered  lands  in  irrigation  districts  provided  fot 25 

Tax  sales,  delinquent,  State  statutes  : 

California    statutes 98 

Colorado  statutes 104-105 

Idaho  statutes 113 

Montana    statutes 120 

Nebraska  statutes 123 

Nevada  statutes 129 

Nevada  statutes,  former  law t. 61 

Oklahoma  statutes 140 

Oregon    statutes 1 143 

Washington    statutes ._ 158 

Taxable  interest  in  land  and  proof 24 

Taxation,  enjoyment  of  power  of  by  public  corporation 7 

Taxation  exemption  of  district  property 9 

California  statute,  bonds 40 

New  Mexico  statute 133 

Special    privilege 74 

Utah  statute,  bonds 170 

Taxation  in  proportion  to  wealtli.  number  of  children,  etc.,  discussed 19 

Taxation,  security  of  bonds  available  through • 40 

Taxation,  railroad  property  included  in  irrigation  districts 16 

Taxation.     {See  also  Assessment.) 

Taxes,  advantages  of  machinery  for  collection  of- 9 

Collector  of,  provided 21 

Collection  of,  Nebraska  statute 122 

Collection  of,  Texas  statute 146 

Collection  of  district,  Utah 154 

Payment  by    State 60 

Refund  of,  Nebraska  statute 123 

Special,  to  redeem  refunding  bonds 45 

Taylor,  Edward  T.,  Colorado,  member  committee  on  irrigation 2: 


I 


INDEX.  209 

Page. 

Terms  of  Ixuids,  ("jilifornia  statutes 95 

TexMs  statutes,  outline  of 145-151 

Appeal  on  i)etition 145 

Aiuiexation  of  lands 149 

Assessments ^ 59, 146 

Assessments,   additional 150 

Assessments,   ju'i-sonal   jiroperty 55,56,145 

Assessor,   duty   of . 146 

Auditor  for  depository  accounts , 151 

Bonds,  certification  of 148 

Bonds,  sale  or  excliaufre  of 148 

Bonds.   United  States  contracts  and 147 

Boundaries  to  bi'  marked ; 146 

Cemetery,  prohibition  of  eminent  domain 149 

Contirmation 148 

Conservation  districts . 147 

Construction  work 149 

Constitutional   amendment 147 

Cooiieration  with  the  United  States 145-146 

Depository  of  money 151 

Dissolution 149 

Districts  in  unorganized  counties 151 

Districts  lying  in  two  or  more  counties 149 

Drainage    ditches , 151 

Election   and   electors 145 

Election  for  constitutional  privilege 148 

Eminent   domain 14!) 

Engineer,   preparation   of  plans 147 

Equalization   of  assessments . 149-150 

Exclusion    of    lands : • 146 

Exemption,   assessment 54 

Expenses,  operation  and  maintenance 149-150 

Funds 149 

Hearing  on  petition 145 

Inclusion  of  lands 146 

Indelitedness,   limitation   of ^ 147 

Intercounty  districts,   organization 149 

Joint  construction  work 151 

Levy  . 148-149 

Organization    election 145-146 

Plans  of  jiroposed  worlds 1 147 

Fei-sonal   proi^erty   assessment 147 

Petition  for  organization 145 

Powers  of  directors 146 

Purposes    145 

Refunding    bonds 151 

Rental    chai-ges,   contract   for 150 

Revenue  for  operation  and  maintenance 149-150 

Sinking  fund   investment 151 

Taxes,  collection  of 146-147 

Taxes,   foi-eclosure.  delinquent 146-147 

Water  requirements 70 

Water  right,  transfer  of 151 

Water  usei*,  payment  regulation 150 

Thompson,  Charles  J..  Ohio,   member  irrigation  connnittee 2 

Thompson,  J.  M.,  of  Idaho,  on  Raker  bill l 26 

Tieton   unit,   irrigation  district,   mention  of 10 

Title,   examination    of.   not    im])ortant ._  9 

Titles,  relation  of  irrigation  distiict  liens  to 63-64 

Tolls  and  charges 65-66 

California    statutes 99 

Colorado   statutes 105 

Town  lots.  California,  law  as  to  inclusion  of 15 

Towns  within   irrigation   districts,   inclusion   of 15-16 

100047—20 14 


210  INDEX. 

Page. 

Transfer  of  water  from  owner 72 

Transfer  of  water  in  case  of  subirrigation 72 

Transfer  of  water  right,  Nebraska  statute 121 

Transfer  of  water  right,  Texas  statute 151 

Transfer  of  water  rights.      (See  Water  rights.) 

Treasurer,    assessor    and,    Oklahoma    statute 139 

Treasurer,  district,   mention   of 21 

Treasurer,  duties  of  mentioned,  Nebraska ; 168 

Treasursr  of  county  and  district.  Wyoming 163 

Tregea    decision   on    confirmation    proceedings 49, 51 

Truckee-Carson   irrigation  district  organized  for  drainage 27 

Truckee-Carson  project,   mention  of  irrigation   district  on.      (See  New- 
lands)  10 

Trustee,  officers  of  irrigation  district,  as 41^2 

U. 

Umatilla  project  irrigation  district,  mention  of 10 

Unentered  public  lands,  assessments  accumulate  against 9 

Unentered  public  lauds  In  proposed  irrigation  district  subject  to  State 

laws 24-25 

Unified  financial  responsibility,  advantages 53 

United  States,  cooperation 21-26 

Additional  congressional  action  desirable : 25 

Congressional  act  in  favor  of  district 24-25 

Federal  lands  in  irrigation  district 23-24 

Provision  in  State  laws 21-23 

Statutory  bar  to  farm  loans  should  be  removed 25-26 

United  States  cooperation  with  States : 

California  statutes-' 96-97 

Colorado  statutes 166 

Idaho  statutes 110 

Montana  statutes 1 167 

Nebraska  statutes 125-126 

Nevada  statutes 168 

Nevada,  consent  of 130 

New  Mexico  statutes 132, 168 

Texas  statutes 145, 146 

Texas  statutes,  contract  to  enforce  rental  charges 

Wyoming  statutes 172-173 

United  States,  operation  by L . 74—75 

Unity  of  irrigation  and  drainage  works,  Idaho  decision . 26 

Unlawful  purposes,  bond  issue,  discussion  of 35-37 

Unorganized  counties,  organization  of  districts  in,  Texas 151 

Unpatented  lands,  in  irrigation  district,  hamper  operations 23 

Unpatented  lands  not  assessable  in  irrigation  district 24 

Utah,  statutes  of 151-155, 170-171 

Annual  assessments 153-154 

Assessment  for  improvements 171 

Assessment  on  basis  of  water  used .58 

Assignment  or  lease  of  water . 152-153 

Bonds,  issue  and  sale . 1.53 

Bonds,  exemption  taxation 170 

Boundaries,  changes  in 170 

Collection  of  taxes 154 

Confirmation 153 

Dissolution 155, 171 

Elections  and  electors ^ 1.52 

Engineer   initiating  organization 151 

Exemption  of  irrigated  lands 1.52 

Exclusion  of  lands 155 

Expen^es,    general 154,170 

First  to  enact  irrigation  district  law 11 

Foreclosure  proceedings 171 

Hearing  on  petition 152 


INDEX.  211 

Utah,  statutes  of — Continued.  Page- 
Improvement  districts 1 171 

Inclusion  of  lands loH 

Lease  of  water 152-153,170 

Levy,   rates  of 154 

Organizaiion,  evidence  of 153 

Orfijniizlng,  two  methods  of 151 

IVtition,  organization ; 152 

Powers  of  board  of  directors 152 

Public  right  to  appropriate  water 155 

Pui'poses 151 

State  lands 170-171 

Survey,  water  and  allotment 152 

Taxation  exemption  of  bonds 170 

Voting  qualifications  based  on  water  used 19 

Warrants,    issuance    of 170, 171 

Water  as  basis  of  assessment 55 

Water,  rule  for  allotting 70 

Water  right  appropriation  suspended 155 

Water  rights,  transfer  of 152, 170 

V. 

Validation  of  bonds  discussed 36-37 

Validity  of  assessment,  when  may  be  raised 61-62 

Confirmation  proceedings 49 

Debts  secured  by  publication -9 

Issues  of  irrigation  district  bonds 38 

Organization  of  irrigation  districts 17-18 

Vested  rights,  improvement  of 68 

Voters,    qualification    of 18-20 

Voters.     {See  also  Qualifications  of  voters.) 

Voting  power  equal  in  most  States 19 

W. 

Warrants  for  claims,  how  issued 46-47 

Warrants  of  irrigation  districts  not  negotiable 47 

Warrants,  State  statutes : 

Colorado  statutes 105 

Nabraska  statutes,  limits  upon  issue 123 

North  Dakota  statutes 136 

Oklahoma  statutes,  issuance  of 140 

Oregon,  limit  of  outstanding 47 

Utah,   issuance  of  revised 170-171 

Wyoming,  receivable  for  fund  taxes 173 

Warren  act.  contracts  for  water  mentioned 22 

Warren  act,  power  to  contract  under 23 

Washington,  statutes"  of  State  of 155-160,171-172 

Advertising'  for  construction  work 158 

Assessments,  benefit 55, 157 

Bids  for  construction  work : 158 

Bonds  a  lien  on  the  land 156-157 

Bond  issue  and  sale , 156 

Bond  or  contract  election 150 

Botmdaries,  changing  of . 158-159, 172 

Condemnation  proceedings 156, 171-172 

C(»nflrniation 159 

Consolidation  of  districts ! 172 

Construction  pi-ovisions  as  to  advertisement 158 

l>issolution.  outstanding  bonds 159-160 

Dissolution,  no  outstanding  bonds 159 

Electors,  qualifications  of 156 

Election  hearing  and   regulations 172 

Equalization  of  assessments 157 

Exclusion  of  lands , 159 

Expenses,  general 158 


212  INDEX. 

Washingoii,  statutes  of  State  of — Coutiimed.  Page. 

In(lel)te<lness.   limitation   of 12,158 

Improvement  of  districts,  local 76, 158-172 

Lands  which  may  he  included 155-150 

Lands,  inelusi<in  ()f 158-159 

Levy,   assessment I.57 

Limitations,  on  contract , 46 

Organization,   election 1.56,  172 

Nes'lect  of  duty  hy  officers . 157 

Petition  for  orsi:anization , 1.55 

Payment  of  assessments 157 

Purposes  of  organization I.55 

Puhlication  of  deliiKiuency  lists 1.58 

I'ower    development 73 

Redemption    of   honds 158 

Redemption  of  property : 158 

Sale   of    honds 1.56 

Special    assessments 158 

State  engineer,  sits  with  hoard 17 


State   land   provisions 171,  1 


2 

•> 

Tax   sale 158 

Water,  Utah  rule  of  allotting 70 

Water  apporti(mment,  Wyonung 162 

Water  as  hasis  of  assessment  in  Utah 55 

Water  requirements.  Texas  rule  as  to 70 

Water  right,  hrief  statement  of _^ . 68 

Bonds,  lien  on 39 

Certificates,  exchange  of  honds  for 36-37 

Districts  can  not  adjudicate I 36-37 

AVater  rights,  State  statutes : 

Alontana    statutes,   ai)i)oi'tionment 118 

Montana  statutes,  lands  having  prior 116 

Nehraska  statutes,  transfer  of 121 

Texas,  transfer  of 151 

Utah,    appropriation    suspended 155 

L^tah,   transfer  of ^__ '_       170 

Water  supply   and   annexation L 79 

AVater  supply  apin-oval  hy  State  engineer,  New  Mexico  statute 132 

Water  supply  regulations,  Nehraska  statute 125 

AVater  survey   and   allottment.   Utah 152,170 

AVater  user  pa.vnient  ivgnlations,  Texas 150 

AVater  users'  association,  districts  take  place  of 22 

AA^ater  users'  association,  liens  discharged 6-4 

AVater  users'  association,  operation  «»f  project  hy 74 

AVelling.  Milton  H..  Utah,  memher  Connnittee  on  Irrigation 2 

AVillcocks,  Sii-  William,  on  cooi)cration . o4 

AVilliston  project,  irrigation  district,  mention 10 

Wright   Act.  mention  of ^ 11.  12 

AVright  Act,  mention  of,  in  California  decision 33,34 

AA'right  Act,  mention  of  validity  of  honds 38 

AVright-Bridgford  Act,   mention   of 90 

AVyoming,  outline  of  statutes  of  State  of 160-164,172-173 

Assessment  and  levy 162-163 

Assign  or  lease  water 173 

Bonds 162 

Carey  Act  lands 161 

Confirmation   proceedings 164 

Contracts,   authorization  of ^ 162 

Cooperation  with  United  States 21,172 

Dissolution 164 

Drainage  work,  cooperative 173 

Electors  and  elections _ 161, 173 

Exclusion  of  lands 163,173 

Evidence  of  legal  existence 162 

Expenses,  general 163 

Inclusion  of  lands 163 

Indehtedness,  linjitation  on 163 


INDEX.  213 

W.V(UiiinjLr,  out  line  oi'  slaluit's  oT  Stale  oi' — Continued.  Page. 

Lands  (>xeni|)I(Ml Kil 

Lease,  u.s(>  of  watei- . . IT;-? 

Petilion,  action   on KVJ 

Petition   J'oi-  oi';L;;anization 161 

l'ni'])()ses  ol'  organization 161 

Report  of  Stale  engineer 162 

Tax   sale   certiticates,   iirovision.s l 178 

Slate  en.^ineer,  report  of 162 

Treasurer  of' county  and  district , 163 

AVarrants,  receivable  for  taxes 173 

Water  ap]>nrtioned  jiro   rata 162 

Y. 

Yakima   iiroject.   iiriyation   district   adjacent  to lU.  22 

Yuma  ])rojt''l   -'in   interstate  one   82 

o 


UCSOUTHFRNRMM  <■'■.■ 


'"JTY 


AA    000  604  292    3 


Ills 


r-m 


lit 


i 


:JlP 


i*.,l  ¥} 


M'.'>' 


',l''i't 


H';:«!, 


'k*?^ 


B'f  vf> 


«s«lii.vj 


r.•^^V\^:'^;■tL;■',^: 


■i;.i;-"\r.;'t.. 


fs'^v''. 


t^i;S(^^'^^i:§^•vli■^!^ 


IV,,  'V 


^ 


fitW.«yf: 


m0: 


